That’s interesting. I agree I glossed over many (most) parts where the parties agree (on general democratic principles, on capitalism in some form, on the order of magnitude of budget for many things) and focused on issues where they disagree.
But I think for my thesis, any remaining differences are a puzzle to be explained, and the perceptions that the parties differ is what drives the results. Since public debate focuses on issues where parties differ substantially, these should be the issues driving voting behavior—you can narrow down the model to those issues and still try to explain the puzzle, right? If voters don’t perceive a difference between the parties, what is driving the changes in voting between different election cycles?
That’s interesting. I agree I glossed over many (most) parts where the parties agree (on general democratic principles, on capitalism in some form, on the order of magnitude of budget for many things) and focused on issues where they disagree.
But I think for my thesis, any remaining differences are a puzzle to be explained, and the perceptions that the parties differ is what drives the results. Since public debate focuses on issues where parties differ substantially, these should be the issues driving voting behavior—you can narrow down the model to those issues and still try to explain the puzzle, right? If voters don’t perceive a difference between the parties, what is driving the changes in voting between different election cycles?