Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Chapter 3 proves that the statements published on social media can be analyzed profitably through automated scaling techniques of text analysis in order to map the intra-party structure of a party; it analyzes comments written by prominent factional leaders of the Italian Democratic Party to measure their ideological distance. Statistical analysis shows that such distance can explain a politician’s propensity to endorse one or another candidate running for the party nomination and it is positively associated with the propensity to overtly criticize a candidate.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.
Bäck, H., & Debus, M. 2016. Political Parties, Parliaments and Legislative Speechmaking. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. CrossRef
Benoit, K., & Herzog, A. (2017). Text analysis: Estimating policy preferences from written and spoken words. In: Bachner, J., Wagner Hill, K, & Ginsberg, B (Eds.), Analytics, Policy and Governance. Yale: Yale University Press.
Benoit, K., Bräuninger, T., & Debus, M. (2009). Challenges for estimating policy preferences: Announcing an open access archive of political documents. German Politics, 18(3), 441–454. CrossRef
Bernauer, J., & Bräuninger, T. (2009). Intra-party preference heterogeneity and faction membership in the 15th German Bundestag: A computational text analysis of Parliamentary speeches. German Politics, 18(3), 385–402. CrossRef
Boireau, M. (2014). Determining political stances from twitter timelines: The belgian parliament case. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (pp. 145–151).
Bond, R., & Messing, S. (2015). Quantifying social media’s political space: Estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on facebook. American Political Science, 109(1), 62–78. CrossRef
Boucek, F. (2009). Rethinking factionalism: Typologies. Intra-party dynamics and three faces of factionalism. Party Politics, 15(4), 455–485. CrossRef
Boucek, F. 2012. Factional Politics. How Dominant Parties Implode or Stabilize. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bowler, S., Farrell, D.M., & Katz, R.S. (1999). Party cohesion, party discipline, and parliaments. In Bowler, S, Farrell, D.M., & Katz, R.S. (Eds.), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. (pp. 3–22). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Carrubba, C.J., Gabel, M., & Hug, S. (2008). Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: A theory of roll-call vote selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 543–572. CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2012). Bounded oligarchy: How and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 689–701. CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2015a). The politics of fission: Analysis of faction breakaways among Italian parties (1946–2011). British Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 121–139. CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2017). Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics, 23(1), 7–17. CrossRef
Ceron, A., & Curini, L. (2016). e-Campaigning in the 2014 European elections: The emphasis on valence issues in a two-dimensional multiparty system. Party Politics, 10.1177/1354068816642807.
Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S.M. 2017. Politics and Big Data: Nowcasting and Forecasting Elections with Social Media. London: Routledge.
Conover, M., Gonçalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. 2011. Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. In SocialCom/PASSAT 2011 (pp. 192–199).
Curini, L. (2015). The conditional ideological inducement to campaign on character valence issues in multiparty systems the case of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 48(2), 168–192. CrossRef
Curini, L., & Martelli, P. (2010). Ideological proximity and valence competition. Negative campaigning through allegation of corruption in the Italian legislative arena from 1946 to 1994. Electoral Studies, 29(4), 636–647. CrossRef
Debus, M., & Bräuninger, T. (2009). Intra-party factions and coalition bargaining. In: Giannetti, D. & Benoit, K. (Eds.), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. (pp. 121–145). New York, NY: Routledge.
Djupe, P.A., & Peterson, D.A.M. (2002). The impact of negative campaigning: Evidence from the 1998 senatorial primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 55(4), 845–860. CrossRef
Dominguez, C.B.K. (2011). Does the party matter? Endorsements in congressional primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 534–544. CrossRef
Ecker, A. (2015). Estimating policy positions using social network data: Cross-validating position estimates of political parties and individual legislators in the polish parliament. Social Science Computer Review, doi: 10.1177/0894439315602662.
Giannetti, D., & Benoit, K. (Eds.) (2009). Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. New York, NY: Routledge.
Giannetti, D., & Laver, M. (2009). ‘Party cohesion, party discipline, party factions in Italy. In: Giannetti, D. & Benoit, K. (Eds.), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. (pp. 146–168). New York, NY: Routledge.
Greene, Z., & Haber, M. (2014). Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses. British Journal of Political Science, doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000283.
Hassell, H. (2016). Party control of party primaries: Party influence in nominations for the US senate. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 75–87. CrossRef
Heller, W.B., & Mershon, C. (2008). Dealing in discipline: Party switching and legislative voting in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1988-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 910–924. CrossRef
Hix, S., & Jun, H.W. (2009). Party behaviour in the parliamentary arena. Party Politics, 15(6), 667–694. Ibenskas, R., & Sikk, A. (2017). Patterns of party change in central and eastern europe, 1990–2015. Party Politics, 23(1), 43–54. CrossRef
Karpowitz, C., Monson, J., Patterson, K., & Pope, J. (2011). Tea time in America? The impact of the tea party movement on the 2010 midterm elections. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(2), 303–309.
Lau, R.R., & Pomper, G. 2004. Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lau, R.R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I.B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209. CrossRef
Livne, A., Simmons, M.P., Adar, E., & Adamic, L.A. (2011). The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76. CrossRef
McDermott, M.L. (2006). Not for members only: Group endorsements as electoral information cues. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 249–257. CrossRef
McElroy, G. (2009). Intra-party politics at the trans-national level. In: Giannetti, D. & Benoit, K. (Eds.), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. (pp. 202–225). New York, NY: Routledge.
McGann, A.J. (2002). The advantages of ideological cohesion: A model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multi-party democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14(1), 37–70. CrossRef
Medzihorsky, J., Littvay, L., & Jenne, E.K. (2014). Has the tea party era radicalized the republican party? Evidence from text analysis of the 2008 and 2012 republican primary debates. PS: Politics and Political Science, 47(4), 806–812.
Peterson, D. A. M., & Djupe, P. A. (2005). When primary campaigns go negative: The determinants of campaign negativity. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 45–54. CrossRef
Proksch, S.-O., & Slapin, J.B. 2015. The Politics of Parliamentary Debate: Parties, Rebels and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Roese, N.J., & Sande, G.N. (1993). Backlash effects in attack politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(8), 632–653. CrossRef
Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and Party System. A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., & Antoun, C.et al.. (2015). Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0128337. 10.1371/journal.pone.0128337 CrossRef
Seddone, A. (2012). Per chi suona la campana. Uno sguardo sugli endorsement. Questioni Primarie, 4, 7–8.
Spirling, A., & Quinn, K.M. (2010). Identifying intra-party voting blocs in the UK House of Commons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 490, 447–457. CrossRef
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. CrossRef
Sylwester, K., & Purver, M. (2015). Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137422. 10.1371/journal.pone.0137422. CrossRef
Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sam, S. (2013). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501. CrossRef
Walter, A.S. (2014). Choosing the enemy: Attack behaviour in a multiparty system. Party Politics, 20(3), 311–323. CrossRef
Cox, G.W., Rosenbluth, F.M., & Thies, M.F. (2000). Electoral rules, career ambitions, and party structure: Comparing factions in Japan’s upper and lower houses. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 115–122. CrossRef
Ibenskas, R., & Sikk, A. (2017). Patterns of party change in Central and Eastern Europe, 1990–2015. Party Politics, 23(1), 43–54. CrossRef
- Endorsements in Primary Elections