How to Win in Modern Electoral Campaigning

Introduction

Do electoral campaigns really matter? Campaigns, of course, do matter: they affect the media agenda, voting behaviour and, as a consequence, the outcome of an election; they can even make the difference and decide an election. Therefore, it is important to discuss the conditions, strategies and implications of electoral campaigns and to find answers to the following questions: How does

the voter decide in modern democracies? What does a ‘perfect electoral campaign’ look like? What wins the election? What is wrong and what is right in electoral campaigning? The following article answers these questions which are crucial for modern electoral campaigning.

How does the voter decide in modern democracies?

The question of how a voter decides in modern democracies is crucial not only for the outcome of an election but also for the strategies of an electoral campaign. However, most importantly, there is no such thing as the voter: there are different voters characterised by different voting behaviour, resulting in different voting decisions. Based on Weber (1978) and Dalton (1984), four ideal types of voter can be distinguished: two kinds of ‘swing voter’ and two varieties of ‘base voter’ (Strohmeier 2002, 72–81; 2007, 98-100; Table 1).

The first voter is the ‘traditional base voter’. He or she shows an extremely high degree of party affiliation and a low degree of rationality (political interest and political education). Support for a party is ‘almost a habitual activity and political involvement is not likely to extend to areas where party cues are lacking’ (Dalton 1984, 270). In other words, the traditional base voter always ballots for the same party but does not really know why. Therefore, this voting behaviour is traditional as described by Max Weber: ‘determined by ingrained habituation’ (Weber 1978, 25). As a result, the voting behaviour of the ‘traditional base voter’ is predominantly influenced by a specific party and cannot really be changed. For example, a voter in the US who always votes Republican without reflecting on the decision and without considering candidates and issues can be regarded as a traditional base voter.

The second voter is the ‘value-rational base voter’. He or she shows both a high degree of party affiliation and a high degree of rationality. Political belief results in strong party attachments, but this voter ‘is psychologically involved in politics even when party cues are lacking’ (Dalton 1984, 271). In other words, the value-rational base voter always votes for the same party, as long as this party represents the voter's political values. Therefore, this voting behaviour is value-rational as described by Max Weber: ‘determined by a conscious belief in the value for its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other form of behaviour’ (Weber 1978, 24–5). As a result, the voting behaviour of the value-rational base voter is predominantly influenced by the values and beliefs of parties, their programmes and candidates and can only be changed if these values and beliefs change. For example, a voter in the US who always votes Republican, as he or she has a strictly conservative attitude and strongly believes in the mechanism of the free market, can be regarded as a value-rational base voter.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1

Four ideal types of voter

	Low party affiliation	High party affiliation
High rationality	‘Instrumentally rational swing voter’	‘Value-rational base voter’
Low rationality	‘Affectual swing voter’	‘Traditional base voter’

The third voter is the ‘instrumentally rational swing voter’. This voter shows a low degree of party affiliation and a high degree of rationality. Consequently, he or she is not attached to a political party but is still ‘involved in politics’ (Dalton 1984, 271). In other words, the instrumentally rational swing voter always votes for the party which provides him or her with the greatest benefits. Therefore, this voting behaviour is ‘instrumentally rational’ as described by Max Weber: ‘determined by expectations’ which ‘are used as conditions or means for the attainment of the actor's own rationally pursued and calculated ends’ (Weber 1978, 24). As a result, the voting behaviour of the instrumentally rational swing voter is predominantly influenced by the programmatic positions and competences of the parties and candidates (which are relevant to the voter). For example, a voter in the US who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but was disappointed by Obama's performance in a wide range of policy fields (e.g. state debt, Guantanamo and taxation) during his first term of office and, as a consequence, voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 can be regarded as an instrumentally rational swing voter.

The fourth voter is the ‘affectual swing voter’. This voter shows an extremely low degree of party affiliation as well as a low degree of rationality. As a consequence, he or she is ‘neither attached to a political party nor psychologically involved in politics’ (Dalton 1984, 270). In other words, the affectual swing voter votes for the party which fits his or her prevailing mood. Therefore, this voting behaviour is affectual as described by Max Weber: ‘determined by the actor's specific affects and feeling states’ (Weber 1978, 25). As a result, the voting behaviour of the affectual swing voter is predominantly influenced by feelings, the candidates, in particular their personalities, and lurid headlines dominating the media agenda. For example, a voter in the US who does not care a lot about parties and programmes but voted for Barack Obama in 2008, as he or she was fascinated by Obama's charismatic appearance, can be regarded as an affectual swing voter.

An electoral campaign has to communicate with all types of voter, but it cannot communicate with all in the same way and with the same intensity. For one thing, the electoral campaign has to provide different types of voter with different information–-without producing internal contradictions. For another, the different types of voter have different priorities in modern electoral campaigns. Most importantly, in all modern democracies the share of base voters has decreased and the share of swing voters has increased, which is predominantly due to social changes, modern mass communication, decreasing social ties and charismatic candidates. As a result, the two types of swing voter have become increasingly important for the outcome of an election and, as a consequence, for the electoral campaign. In other words, electoral campaigning in modern democracies is not primarily about mobilising base voters but about attracting swing voters–-in particular affectual swing voters–-as quite a high degree of swing voters in modern democracies can be influenced by feelings and short-term effects like charismatic candidates or temporary battlegrounds. Of course, an electoral campaign in modern democracies cannot get on without mobilising base voters but can only be won by attracting swing voters. For example, in the 2012 presidential election, both the Obama and the Romney campaigns tried to mobilise base voters but ultimately were all about attracting swing voters in the swing states.

What does a ‘perfect electoral campaign’ look like?

There are electoral campaigns which are (more or less) unsuccessful and electoral campaigns which are (more or less) successful, but there is no electoral campaign which is ‘perfect’. In other words, there is no pattern for an ideal electoral campaign which can be used by all parties or candidates and can be applied to all elections. The requirements of electoral campaigns differ according to a wide range of factors such as political system, type of political party, present position of the party or the candidate in the political system and current topics.

First, the requirements of electoral campaigns differ according to the political system. Presidential and congressional elections in the US, for example, are different in many ways from general elections in Germany. The US and Germany have different electoral systems, different party systems, different systems of government, different structures of mass media and, last but not least, different political cultures. As a result, ‘catch-all’ strategies (strategies to provide a programme for nearly all groups of voters and to attract the vast majority of voters beyond the base voters, in particular ‘the middle ground’), targeted campaigning, negative campaigning and many other strategies in electoral campaigns work much better in the US than in Germany. For example, the Democrats in the US can try to take the middle ground without losing many voters on the left (as there is no alternative). The German Social Democrats, by contrast, would run the risk of losing lots of voters to the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) or the Left (Die Linke). Targeted campaigning in the German proportional representation system is much less efficient than in the US ‘winner-takes-all system’, in which only a few votes in a state decide all the electoral votes of that state in the Electoral College. Negative campaigning, which works in the US, would not work in Germany, as it would be perceived as too harsh and, as a consequence, cause a ‘boomerang effect’.

Second, the requirements of electoral campaigns differ according to the type of political party. For example, a small party like the Green Party in Germany with a strong focus on environmental policies and an electoral vote share of less than 15% cannot take on the electoral campaign of a big party like the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) with its catch-all strategy (Downs 1957; Kirchheimer 1965) and an electoral vote share of more than 30%. Compared to a ‘catch-all party’, a small party in a multiparty system has a completely different electorate and, as a consequence, has to come up with a completely different electoral strategy.

Third, the requirements of electoral campaigns differ according to the present position of the party or the candidate in the political system. A governing party cannot take on the electoral campaign of an opposition party, and an incumbent president cannot take on the electoral campaign of a challenging presidential candidate. In contrast to the opposition party or the challenging presidential candidate, a governing party or an incumbent president has always to defend the record of government. For example, the governing party cannot promise that ‘Things can only get better’ (King 2006) as the British Labour party did in the 1997 electoral campaign. The governing party or the incumbent president is ultimately responsible or blamed for the ‘things’ and has to explain why they are not going better or why they will get better in the future.

Fourth, the requirements of electoral campaigns differ according to current topics. For example, an economy which is struggling–-or perceived to be struggling–-requires completely different accents in the electoral campaign from an economy which is booming–-or perceived to be booming. In this context it is necessary to mention that the perception of issues is much more important than the issues themselves (their real status). If the economy is stagnating but perceived to be booming, the governing party or the incumbent president will be able to benefit from this distorted perception; and if the economy is stagnating but perceived to be struggling, the opposition party or the challenging presidential candidate will be able to benefit from that distorted perception.

Taking everything into account, there cannot be a perfect electoral campaign, as each campaign has to be different in order to be successful. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of factors which play an important role in the success of an electoral campaign, for example, the candidates, their (perceived) personal and political qualities, the political parties, their (perceived) images and competences, the issues and, of course, the strategies of the electoral campaign.

What wins the election?

During the 1960 US presidential election, the first presidential debate on television, between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, took place. Afterwards, it was frequently claimed that the election was won by television. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama used the Internet for campaigning in a completely new style. Hence, it has been frequently claimed that the election was won by the Internet. In other countries, for example Germany, it is frequently claimed that general elections are won by the candidates. However, elections cannot be won by only one thing. Not television, the Internet or a candidate is able to decide an election single-handedly. The Internet has certainly become a powerful electoral instrument. But, would Barack Obama have been able to win the 2008 or 2012 presidential election if he had campaigned only on the Internet? Of course, Barack Obama was a highly charismatic, mediagenic and eloquent candidate in 2008 and 2012. But, would he have won the election if he had run for the Republican Party?

It is certainly true that some factors in electoral campaigns have become more and more important over time, but there is no single factor which can decide an election single-handedly. Most importantly, each element of the ‘political product’ (Reid 1988)–-the party, the programme and the candidates–-has a different impact, and each communication channel has a different audience. For example, the traditional base voter is predominantly attracted by the party, whereas the affectual swing voter is predominantly attracted by the candidates. Television, functioning as a ‘push medium’ (Neuman and Gregorowicz 2010), is predestined for the communication with swing voters, whereas the Internet, functioning as a ‘pull medium’ (Neuman and Gregorowicz 2010), is predestined for the communication with ‘base voters’. In other words, the Internet is a less convenient way to attract the vast majority of swing voters (Nielsen 2010). However, it is a rather convenient instrument to raise money, to recruit volunteers and to organise local campaigns. In the end, modern elections are won by an ideal mix of the political product and the communication of the political product by using all communication channels with respect to their specific features. Most importantly, all elements of the political product–-the party, the programme and the candidates–-and all communication channels–-the Internet, classic mass media (television, radio and the press) and, of course, direct personal communication–-play an important role in an electoral campaign, and none of them can be neglected.

What is wrong and what is right in electoral campaigning?

There are many things which can go wrong in an electoral campaign but only a few which are definitely right. It is wrong to assume that positive campaigning always works better than negative campaigning, that feelings work better than facts or that personalities work better than parties. An electoral strategy, for example negative campaigning, can be both productive and counterproductive. Whether it is the one or the other depends on a wide range of factors: the political culture, the political opponent, the political atmosphere, the circumstances and, of course, the style of negative campaigning. For example, negative campaigns which are harsh and personal are more likely to generate a ‘boomerang effect’ than negative campaigns which are factual and impersonal.

Modern electoral campaigns have to meet a wide range of requirements. One of the most important is flexibility, in particular with regard to the electorate and the political opponents. Flexibility with regard to the electorate means paying attention to and concentrating on issues which are relevant to the electorate and the potential voters. Most importantly, these issues can change during an electoral campaign. Before the US presidential campaign in 1992, for example, everyone thought that the election would be decided by foreign-policy issues. However, at the end of the campaign, domestic issues, in particular the economy, turned out to be much more important than foreign policy. This was realised by the Clinton campaign, which used the slogan ‘It's the economy, stupid’ (The Washington Times 2012) but not by the Bush campaign.

Consequently, modern efficient electoral campaigns always have to oversee the public agenda and to take into account opinion polls. Flexibility with regard to political opponents means the attack and the counterattack of these opponents, if it seems necessary during an electoral campaign. Modern electoral campaigns are primarily designed to address voters, not political opponents. However, negative campaigning and rapid rebuttals are important elements of modern electoral campaigns as well. Negative campaigning of political opponents especially requires a great deal of flexibility, as every attack should be rebutted and counterattacked in the same news cycle (Esser and Reinemann 1999, 45). Taking everything into account, the strategies of an electoral campaign can be worked out at the beginning of a campaign but have to be permanently adapted to the voters and the political opponents during the campaign itself.

Conclusion

There is no such thing as the voter, but there are different types of voter who have different priorities for modern electoral campaigns. Most importantly, electoral campaigns in modern democracies can only be won by attracting swing voters, in particular affectual swing voters influenced by feelings and short-term effects like charismatic candidates or temporary battlegrounds.

There is no pattern for an ideal electoral campaign which can be used to win an election, but there are many factors which contribute to the success of an electoral campaign. Most importantly, not only the elements of the political product (the candidates and their personal and political qualities, the political parties and their images and competences, and the issues) but also their perception (which may differ from reality) and the strategies of the electoral campaign have a significant influence on electoral success.

There is no single factor–-an element of the political product or a communication channel–-which can decide an election single-handedly but a wide range of elements which a modern electoral campaign has to combine. Most importantly, efficient electoral campaigns are made up of an ideal mix of the entire political product and its communication through all classic and modern communication channels.

There are not a lot of things which are definitely right in modern electoral campaigning, but there are some requirements that modern electoral campaigns have to meet, in particular flexibility with regard to the electorate and the political opponents. Most importantly, the strategies of an electoral campaign have to be permanently adapted to the voters and the political opponents throughout the campaign.