Speaking of Parties.. Dueling Views in a Canonical Measure of Sophistication

4Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This article investigates fallout from a subtle but important conceptual disagreement over the nature of political parties that challenges a key measure of mass political sophistication. The American Voter's typology assumes that sophisticated citizens notice the ideological abstractions defining parties. Alternatively, The Party Decides defines parties as group-based coalitions. The distinction is crucial for the "levels of conceptualization" measure, which considers ideological party views superior to group-oriented ones. Few people make ideological remarks about parties; many more describe links between parties and groups. Converse and colleagues take the scarcity of "ideologues" as evidence against mass sophistication, but a measure that might classify Party Decides-type comments in a lower tier may be invalid. How many citizens are misclassified? I parse decades of survey data to test whether sophistication in some group-centric citizens has gone unrecognized. It hasn't. Despite the conceptual threat, several tests show no evidence of hidden sophistication among these respondents overall or in subgroups, affirming the measure's rank-order. Group-centric citizens are right about parties, but even their brightest are no "ideologues."

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kalmoe, N. P. (2019). Speaking of Parties.. Dueling Views in a Canonical Measure of Sophistication. In Public Opinion Quarterly (Vol. 83, pp. 68–90). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz015

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free