While polarisation is on the rise in Western Europe, there is little descriptive evidence about which issues divide voters and how. There are even fewer studies that seek to explain how party salience strategies respond to polarising issues. This study addresses these gaps, underscoring a conceptual distinction that is often missed in the literature on issue competition — namely, that issues can divide the electorate at large (‘general issue polarisation’), or according to the party they support (‘party issue polarisation’). Survey data about voter preferences in six Western European countries shows that the correlation between these two types of issue polarisation is weak. For example, while some cultural issues like soft drug policy and same-sex marriage are highly polarising in general, they do not divide supporters of opposing parties so much. Using party Twitter activity as the dependent variable, it is shown that parties put less emphasis on issues the more extreme voter preferences are, running contrary to predictions based on prior work. By contrast, issues higher in party polarisation received more attention. This study highlights the importance of taking a multidimensional approach to issue polarisation, and calls for more refined theories of how parties deal with polarising issues.
AbramowitzA (2021) It’s only you and me and we just disagree: the ideological foundations of affective polarization. The Forum19(3): 349–364.
2.
AdamsJMerrill IIISGrofmanB (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A cross-national Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AdamsJDe VriesCELeiterD (2012) Subconstituency reactions to elite depolarization in the Netherlands: an analysis of the Dutch public’s policy beliefs and partisan loyalties, 1986–98. British Journal of Political Science42(1): 81–105.
4.
AdamsJGreenJMilazzoC (2012) Has the British public depolarized along with political elites? An American perspective on British public opinion. Comparative Political Studies45(4): 507–530.
5.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
6.
AlvarezRM (1998) Information and Elections. University of Michigan Press.
7.
AlvarezRMMorrierJ (2025) Do polarized issues carry more weight in voters’ electoral choices? Empirical evidence from a novel measurement approach. American Politics Research53(5): 481–498.
8.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1994) Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: the joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335–357.
9.
BaldassarriDGelmanA (2008) Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. AJS; American journal of sociology114(2): 408–446.
10.
BartelsLM (1986) Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. American Journal of Political Science30: 709–728.
11.
BischofDWagnerM (2019) Do voters polarize when radical parties enter parliament?American Journal of Political Science63(4): 888–904.
12.
BornschierS (2010) Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right. the New Cultural Conflict in Western Europe. Temple University Press.
13.
BudgeI (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science24(4): 443–467.
14.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and predicting elections: issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democraciesNo Title. Routledge.
15.
CaldwellD (2023) Polarisation and cultural realignment in Britain, 2014-2019 [Doctoral dissertation]. Durham University.
16.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1980) The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review74(1): 78–91.
17.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1989) Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton University Press.
18.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review18(1–3): 1–74.
19.
CoxGW (1990) Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science34: 903–935.
20.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems: party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41(7): 899–920.
21.
De SioLWeberT (2014) Issue yield: a model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review108(4): 870–885.
22.
De SioLDe AngelisAEmanueleV (2018) Issue yield and party strategy in multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies51(9): 1208–1238.
DiMaggioPEvansJBrysonB (1996) Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology102(3): 690–755.
25.
DownIHanKJ (2021) Far right parties and ‘Europe’: societal polarization and the limits of EU issue contestation. Journal of European Integration43(1): 65–81.
26.
DownIWilsonCJ (2010) Opinion polarization and inter-party competition on Europe. European Union Politics11(1): 61–87.
27.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row.
28.
D’AlimonteRDe SioLFranklinMN (2020) From issues to goals: a novel conceptualisation, measurement and research design for comprehensive analysis of electoral competition. West European Politics43(3): 518–542.
29.
EmanueleVMarinoB (2024) Party system ideological polarization in Western Europe: data, trends, drivers, and links with other key party system properties (1945–2021). Political Research Exchange6(1): 2399095.
30.
EstebanJ-MRayD (1994) On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society: 819–851.
31.
EzrowL (2007) The variance matters: how party systems represent the preferences of voters. The Journal of Politics69(1): 182–192.
32.
EzrowLDe VriesCESteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
33.
GidronNAdamsJHorneW (2023) Who dislikes whom? Affective polarization between pairs of parties in western democracies. British Journal of Political Science53(3): 997–1015, In press.
34.
Green-PedersenC (2007) The growing importance of issue competition: the changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies55(3): 607–628.
35.
HanKJ (2020) Beclouding party position as an electoral strategy: Voter polarization, issue priority and position blurring. British Journal of Political Science50(2): 653–675.
36.
HareC (2022) Constrained citizens? Ideological structure and conflict extension in the Us electorate, 1980–2016. British Journal of Political Science52(4): 1602–1621.
37.
HernándezEAnduizaERicoG (2021) Affective polarization and the salience of elections. Electoral Studies69: 102203.
38.
HoboltSBDe VriesCE (2015) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies48(9): 1159–1185.
39.
HoogheLMarksG (2018) Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy25(1): 109–135.
40.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
41.
KoedamJBindingGSteenbergenMR (2025) Multidimensional party polarization in Europe: cross-Cutting divides and effective dimensionality. British Journal of Political Science55: e24.
42.
KozlowskiACMurphyJP (2021) Issue alignment and partisanship in the American public: revisiting the ‘partisans without constraint’ thesis. Social Science Research94: 102498.
43.
LachatR (2008) The impact of party polarization on ideological voting. Electoral Studies27(4): 687–698.
44.
LevenduskyM (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
45.
LevenduskyMSPopeJC (2011) Red states vs. blue states: going beyond the mean. Public Opinion Quarterly75(2): 227–248.
46.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: an introduction In: Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press, 1–64.
47.
McCartyNPooleKTRosenthalH (2016) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.
48.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
49.
MehlhaffID (2024) A group-based approach to measuring polarization. American Political Science Review118(3): 1518–1526.
50.
Merrill IIISAdamsJ (2002) Centrifugal incentives in multi-candidate elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics14(3): 275–300.
51.
MoralMBestRE (2023) On the relationship between party polarization and citizen polarization. Party Politics29(2): 229–247.
52.
MunzertSBauerPC (2013) Political depolarization in German public opinion, 1980–2010. Political Science Research and Methods1(1): 67–89.
53.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
54.
PlessAKhoudjaYGrunowD (2023) How polarized is Europe? Public opinion disagreement, issue alignment, and sorting across European countries. SocArXiv. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13898, In preparation.
55.
ReiljanA (2020) Fear and loathing across party lines’(also) in Europe: affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research59(2): 376–396.
56.
SaniGSartoriG (1983) Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies In: Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change. Sage, 307–340.
57.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: Volume 1: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
58.
SchmidtERCarminesEG, and Sniderman PM (2025) The political dynamics of partisan polarization. Elements in American Politics. Cambridge University Press.
59.
SpoonJKlüverH (2015) Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: why parties emphasise divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 343–362.
60.
TraberDStoetzerLFBurriT (2023) Group-based public opinion polarisation in multi-party systems. West European Politics46(4): 652–677.
61.
Van der EijkC (2001) Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity35: 325–341.
62.
WagnerM (2012) Defining and measuring niche parties. Party Politics18(6): 845–864.
63.
WagnerM (2024) Affective polarization in Europe. European Political Science Review16(3): 378–392, In press.
64.
WalgraveSTreschALefevereJ (2015) The conceptualisation and measurement of issue ownership. West European Politics38(4): 778–796.
65.
ZhouX (2019) Hierarchical item response models for analyzing public opinion. Political Analysis27(4): 481–502.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
