| Summary: | Campaign organizers and the media appear to agree that voters’ perceptions of party
leaders have an important impact on the vote: substantial effort is made to ensure that
leaders look good, that they speak well, and that they are up in the polls. Media reports
during election campaigns focus on the horserace and how leaders are perceived in the
public eye. In contrast, the academic literature is much more divided. Some suggest that
leaders play an important role in the vote calculus, while others argue that in comparison to
other factors (such as partisanship and the economy) perceptions of leaders have only a
minimal impact.
Problematically, the literature on party leaders is diverse and non-cumulative.
Existing studies have been based primarily upon the analysis of only a single election and
scholars have relied upon different survey questions in varying formats to inform their
conclusions. These differences have resulted in the inconclusiveness of the literature. An
effective evaluation of the role of party leaders requires a larger study, comparative across
both time and space.
This study incorporates data from 35 separate election studies across a number of
countries with varying institutional environments. It takes both a broad and in-depth look at
evaluations of party leaders. I make five main conclusions. First, voters evaluate leaders’
traits in relation to two dimensions: character and competence. Second, partisanship and ideology
have a substantial influence on voters’ perceptions of party leaders, whereas issue attitudes
and socio-demographics play a more minimal role. Third, voters perceive leaders through the
lens of a partisan stereotype, in which Conservative leaders are seen to be more competent,and leaders of Left parties are perceived to have more character. Fourth, political
sophistication has a substantial effect on the way that voters perceive party leaders, as well as
affecting the impact of those perceptions on vote choice. Fifth and finally, leaders matter—
they have an influential effect on the individual vote calculus, as well as having a discernible
impact on electoral outcomes.
|
|---|
