Too Important to Ignore? When Voters Seek Clarity About Policy Positions

• In Event: European Politics and Society Virtual Poster Session

Abstract

When do voters punish politicians who are unclear about their policy positions? Being deliberately ambiguous is a very common and often successful strategy for moderate and mainstream parties. Being ambiguous can be a strategy that keeps extreme parties at bay because it enables catch-all coalitions of voters with diverse preferences, drawing votes away from the fringes. However, existing explanations of ambiguity cannot explain why the same voters sometimes reward ambiguity and in other instances reject it. To understand why the strategic use of ambiguity sometimes fails, I argue that we should focus on the issue a politician is ambiguous on: as the salience of an issue for voters increases, they demand more clarity on that issue and disapprove of politicians who are ambiguous. I test this argument using an original survey experiment run with 2000 Dutch respondents that combines Quadratic Voting measuring salience with a Conjoint that captures how voters rank parties who are ambiguous. In a time where dividing, second-dimensional concerns have become imperative, my argument highlights a representation challenge for parties relying on a coalition of voters with diverse preferences. As dividing issues become more important to voters, mainstream parties see their coalition making strategies fail, making it easier for political actors at the fringes to attract voters.

Author

• Jonne Kamphorst, European University Institute