Campaign Strategy and Impact in Eight Countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela)

University Of California-San Diego, La Jolla CA

Investigators

Abstract

Why is negative campaigning so common in some countries, while exceptionally rare in others? Do differences in campaign tone affect voters' commitment to participation and the democratic process? This project offers and tests a theory of political campaigning, and builds a new dataset of campaign messages for eight countries in Latin America. Campaigns should play an important role in the democratic process, providing voters with information to hold representatives accountable and to pass judgement on competing policy proposals. Previous research shows that voters in the United States acquire much of their information and opinion on candidates and parties during campaigns. However, some have argued that negative "attack" campaigns confuse voters, discourage voting, and increase citizen disgust with the political process. Globally, campaigns are run in many different contexts and following many different electoral systems. For example, candidates may run for office in countries with strong, polarized parties, or in countries where political parties play little rule in politics. My theoretical work suggests that party system type will affect negative campaigning: we will observe more negative campaigning in systems with strong political parties. Similarly, elections may be held under closed-list and open-list proportional representation, run-off districts, multi-member plurality, as well as the single-member districts common in the United States. A careful examination of these rules suggests that, in theory, some contexts will promote more negative campaigning than in others. In particular, negative campaigning should be most common in district elections, like those in the United States, and weakest in systems where many representatives are elected from the same district. The second question pertains to the impact of negative campaigning on democracy. The effects of negative campaigning in established democracies are subject to considerable debate. Negative campaigning may increase or decrease citizens' participation in politics, support for democracy, and information about candidates and parties. Negative campaigning can have positive or negative impacts on voters, depending on context. Where citizens are highly ideological, negative campaigning provides information and mobilizes voters. Where ideology and partisanship are weaker, negative campaigning confuses and disillusions. These two questions are tested by analyzing political messages in eight Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela. In 2005 and 2006, each of these countries held major elections, either legislative or presidential, or both. In these eight countries, a wide variety of electoral systems are in use, and levels of party strength vary widely. By collecting data on the campaign tactics of candidates for office in these countries, the impact of institutions and context on the extent of negative attack campaigns can be tested. By collecting public opinion data, one can examine how voters respond differently to negative than to positive political messages. This project makes an important contribution in two ways. First, it helps resolve the debate over the impact of negative campaigns on democratic values: improving or hindering the consolidation of new democracies. Second, it suggests institutional reforms to increase or decrease negative campaigning, as appropriate.