You are on page 1of 3

The Ideology that a certain candidate holds, concedably, has an effect on mass opinion

and perception of electoral candidates, and most likely affect voting choices of the mass base.
The relationship of ideology to the possible victory/defeat and future political careers of
candidates has always been an interest to most political scientists in the US. This paper examines
these literature presenting the relationship of ideology to different variables concerning election.

Ideology and Uncontested Elections

Ideology and Ideological extremism is one of the variables used in Squire’s Competition
and Uncontested Seats in US House Elections (1989) in explaining the phenomena of
Uncontested Elections. In his literature review he notes that incumbents who are ideologically
extreme (e.g. extremely conservative or extremely liberal, as measured in their ADA score), are
more likely to attract electoral challengers that more moderate representatives.

Bernhard et.al (2011) however have a more elaborative take on ideological extremism
where they found out that the effect of extremism has a negative correlation to first-time
government officials while re-electionists have positive correlation. The reason for this is that
first-time government officials are more likely to compromise in ideology, when operationalized
on the policy-making process. They note that candidates who are more willing to adapt to
demands and compromises, even at the expense of some of the fronts of their ideological
background, are more likely to win. Conversely, first-time candidates who go extreme tend to
lose because he has little to no experience yet to handle public demand that can thoroughly fit his
ideology. (Bernhard, 2011)

For re-electionists, ideological extremism has a positive value because of the perception
of continuity (Bernhard, 2011). This means that it is more accepting for re-electionists to go
extreme in ideology because of a temporal base support he generated as he continues his political
career. Conversely as well, re-electionists who do not go ideologically extreme have negative
effects because most probably people will vote for a challenger who is also a moderate.
(Bernhard, 2011)

Therefore, for Bernhard, in the context of uncontested election, the phenomena occurs
because of shifts of ideological stances, where first time candidates are more likely to be

Citizens have limited information about parties' positions and politics in general and invest limited cognitive resources in their electoral choices and other political decisions. and single-issue voting. Lachat presents a third attempt to show the relationship of ideology to voting where he calls it as “single-issue voting” as decision to support a given party because they perceive it as the best able to handle what they see as the most pressing political problem. once one establishes a support base. Lachat (2011) introduces terms such as “party polarization”. Ideology and Elections .al 1991. uncontested elections. However. of this model is the verification of stereotypes itself. and “proportional electoral system” to refer symptoms/requisites of a competitive election.ideologically moderate in order to generate mass base support. While such a model of electoral competition is attractive from a normative standpoint. ideology does not play too much of a role because the electorate is settled with no choices/alternatives. ideology plays a vital role in determining what sort of judgment does the electorate has to take. Lachat notes. He argues that greater polarization (the phenomena where public opinion divides and goes to the ideological extremes) to different competing ideologies entail a more competitive election. “fragmentation”. cited in Lachat 2011) The next thing that Lachat would consider is on Party Heuristics where he characterizes it as the reference merely to the party affiliation of the candidate. Proximity voting is a model where it suggests that people tend to vote for parties whose ideologies come closer to theirs in the political space (Lachat. with usual stereotypes or images they associate with parties are reference. And conversely. Lachat provides an interesting insight on the effect of ideology in the US elections. (Sniderman et. however. The limitation. The study found out that under a competitive election. it makes demanding assumptions for voters. 647). 2011. Zaller 1992. Voting based on Party Heuristics. in non- competitive. but have to eventually shift to ideological extremism. Bartels 1996. he finds this model a little too dubious because it is too much of an assumption to say that voters can holistically digest the parties’ overall political positions and ideologies. Lachat provides three attempts to explain ideology and voting: Proximity Voting.

. Bush faced issues on foreign policies. they are most likely to receive campaign money. (Lyons and Scheb. Social values of the Filipino such as of religion and morality. following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. and the Republican stance was discredited. Even though the Philippines has no to little concern on ideological blacks and whites. Based from the literature cited above. . the strategic framing of which issues are deemed relevant also affect the ideological preference of the voters. where parties do not necessarily have ideological formations and differentiations. however. 1993) Lyons and Scheb (1992) argues that the framing of present issues e. etc. Because Republicans carry the agenda of the businessmen. it could be. Bush. the attack of politicians on issues certainly matter. 1992) Uncontested Elections in the Philippines Uncontested Elections in the Philippines remain speculative and has an unfounded theoretical explanation. are possible determinants of the ideological foundations of the elites who compete in the election. they found out that the 1984 and 1988 elections were full of issues that came at the consequence of the Republican candidate George W. In their study. and their particular economic policies were more directed to the support of the market economy over social welfare. (Hill and Leighley. the politician remains uncontested. The explanation to these was Republicans are more composed of businessmen and business owners. family value. even if Bush was known to have Foreign Policy as his main strategic advantage. In the study of Hill and Leighley. hypothesized that Philippine Uncontested Elections have an ideological element as well. Ideology can be used to explain the phenomena of uncontested elections to the extent that as long as values and orientations of the politician relate to traditional values that are propagated by the church and the family. They found out that Republicans tend to spend more campaign money and utilize machineries than Democrats. It’s just a matter of re-orienting to popular social values and demands from the electorate. they cited that Ideology can affect campaign spending among gubernatorial seats in US elections. and of the mass electorate. over democrats.g..