English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

While positive party identification is one of the most used concepts in election studies, negative partisanship (NPID) is rarely analyzed. Evidence from two-party systems or settings with majority voting shows that hostility towards one of the other parties has its own unique impact on voting behavior. However, this effect has not been analyzed in the context of European multi-party systems with proportional voting. In this paper, I utilize data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, Module 3, which demonstrates that negative partisanship has its own positive effect on turnout (about nine percentage points). In addition, negative partisanship affects vote choice by 2–6 percentage points. However, contrary to previous findings, NPID does not always affect voting for one of the other parties; no significant relationship was found between NPID and vote choice for Conservative/Christian Democratic and Liberal parties. The results of this study add to the growing literature on negative partisanship and demonstrate its importance in the analysis of voting behavior in multi-party systems

How negative partisanship affects voting behavior in Europe: Evidence from an analysis of 17 European multi-party systems with proportional voting