One striking feature of the electoral performance of Independents is that while some candidates receive a sizeable proportion of the vote, a considerable
number receive a minuscule handful. When conversing with some Independent politicians on a casual basis, one factor frequently referred to that accounts for this difference is the intensity of their election campaigns.
Many studies of campaigns argue that the nature of the effort involved has changed a great deal (see Farrell and Schmitt-Beck (2002b: 9)). In the ‘premodern’ era, campaigning was short-term and decentralised; local party branches organised their own independent campaigns with little direction from party headquarters. From the 1950s on, this style changed as campaigning ‘modernised’; long-term campaigns centralised from national headquarters became the norm, with the importance of the localised element greatly reduced. Further changes in electioneering since the 1990s have given rise to what some have called ‘postmodern’ (Norris 2002) or (in a rather sardonic manner) ‘post- Fordist’ (Denver and Hands 2002) campaigning; this entails a permanent campaign which, although decentralised, is strictly controlled from the centre. Other features include a greater reliance on polling techniques such as focus groups, and the separate targeting of niche voters rather than the mass market. These studies place an emphasis on the declining role of local campaigns, which is evident in Britain, for example, where 52 percent of electors were canvassed by at least one party in 1951, and 22 percent attended at least one meeting, whereas in 1987 only 6 percent were canvassed and only 3 percent attended a meeting (Kavanagh 1992: 81–2).
Up until the early 1980s, most academics saw local campaigns as having little influence in determining the outcome of elections (Denver and Hands 1997: 36). Campaigns were seen as little more than mere rituals, undertaken as a force of habit, and sometimes simply due to enthusiasm for campaigning on the part of the grass-roots members. While the national campaign, generally focussed on the party leader, is far more important, even here it was argued the most impact it could have was to mobilise potential supporters; consequently, attempts at converting voters were deemed futile. An example of this is Lazarsfeld’s classic study of Erie County, which found that a campaign’s main influence was reinforcement not conversion, because those who read most of the communication’s output were those who had their
political predispositions most firmly entrenched, whereas those most open to conversion were the least likely to pay heed to the campaign (in Norris et al. 1999: 4). Rose comes to a similar conclusion, but via a different path (1967: 195). He lists a number of reasons limiting the effectiveness of campaigning, including voter apathy and the inelasticity of the demand for parties; these lead him to agree with Lazarsfeld that campaigning tends to reinforce, rather than change, attitudes (ibid.). However, Rose claims that this is largely due to the ‘imperfectly and intermittently irrational’ campaign tactics of the candidates (ibid.); he thus leaves the loophole that were rational campaign strategies pursued, they could have an influence on voting behaviour.
There has been a sea-change in these beliefs since the late 1980s, as the increasing volume of literature on campaigning has shown that it does have a significant effect on the vote candidates accrue (see Denver and Hands 1997; Farrell and Schmitt-Beck 2002a; Johnston 1987). The decline of party identification has freed up hitherto frozen electorates, and the increasing number of floating voters gives local campaigns an opportunity to persuade, and not simply to mobilise, voters (Denver and Hands 1997: 51–2).
A variety of methods have been used to determine the effects these campaigns have had upon voters. Numerous studies, using expenditure returns as a measure of campaigning, have shown its influence upon turnout and vote direction (see Benoit and Marsh 2003a; Johnston 1987; Pattie, Johnston and Fieldhouse 1995). Others have found that local party member activity can increase the turnout of their supporters (see Gallagher and Marsh 2002: 135– 139; Seyd and Whiteley 1992: 181–200). Some American studies have examined the impact of important campaign events such as party conventions and television debates on the respective party votes. There have also been surveys of candidates and election agents on the nature and extent of campaign activities (see Denver and Hands 1997; Denver and Hands 2002). In addition, some have analysed election study data to determine whether contacting voters influenced the choice of party and/or candidate on polling day (Johnston and Pattie 2003; Marsh 2004a). The common pattern is that all these studies concluded that local campaigning does matter.
In relation to Ireland, for much of the post-war period, election outcomes were regarded by parties as either ‘foregone conclusion[s]’, where the national campaign had little effect, or were dependent on local campaigns (Mair 1987b: 110–111). Irish voters appeared fairly stable in their preferences, deciding their vote largely on the record of the outgoing government. Consequently the parties saw little point in wasting their limited resources on a forlorn attempt to persuade voters to change their mind at the ballot box (Mair 1987b: 111). There was little to no long-term planning put into campaigns, with most strategies devised after the calling of an election (Farrell 1994: 221). As a result, campaigns were pretty much non–descript affairs that did not seek to capture the imagination of the Irish voter. For example, Fianna Fáil did not issue any formal election manifesto between 1948 and 1973, while Labour lacked a central organisation to co-ordinate local campaigns before 1969, as did Fine Gael before the 1980s (Mair 1987b: 112). Mair also refers to a revealing internal Labour memo from the 1965 election that notes the lack of effort invested by the party in the campaign: the national headquarters had only one telephone in operation, which was constantly engaged; no election posters were produced; and key marginal constituencies were not afforded any extra attention (ibid.).
In terms of the nature of electioneering, Irish campaigns tended to buck the comparative models, as the focus was never solely on the national campaigns, but also on the contests within each electoral constituency, both between and within parties. Campaigning was very much a decentralised affair, with very little national co-ordination; all focus was on the individual constituency campaigns. It can be said that Irish elections have modernised greatly since the 1970s (see Farrell 2004; Marsh 2004a), a trend marked by the increasing reliance of the large parties on focus group research, opinion polls and political spin (all of which indicate the emergence of postmodern campaigning). However, as the various campaign experiences of candidates, described in the How Ireland Voted series since 1989, demonstrate, both premodern and modern campaigning is still very much an important part of electioneering Irish-style. Knocking on doors with teams of volunteers,
distributing leaflets in shopping centres, and speaking to after-church gatherings are de rigueur election conduct for all candidates, from government ministers to Independents.
There are various reasons why electioneering in Ireland retains a decentralised nature (a particular feature of premodern campaigns). One factor is the use of a candidate-centred electoral system with multi-member districts, PR-STV, as this fosters an emphasis on local campaigning (Norris 2002: 136). Comparisons can be drawn with Japan where campaigns under the similar Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) system were synonymous with the prominence of local electioneering. An oft-mentioned reason is that each election, rather than being one national contest to choose a government, is in fact an aggregate of hundreds of constituency and sub-constituency elections.
Where candidate-centred politics is prevalent, local campaigning tends to be important, as the respective candidates cannot be reliant on a party label to win a seat. Until recently in Western Europe, electioneering was party- centred, which meant that only the national campaign mattered. However, a widespread decline in the levels of party attachment has resulted in the growing significance of candidate-centred politics. Large proportions of voters no longer identify with a party, finding it difficult to distinguish between various types of the latter in an era of catch-all parties. Where the choice exists, they are now deciding their vote to a greater extent on the nature of either the local candidates (or the party leader). Because candidates contest local constituencies, this has ultimately brought about a renewed emphasis on the importance of local campaigns.
In relation to Independents, although there is hearsay knowledge of the strength of the political machines of some Independent TDs, there is no actual analysis of the nature and intensity of campaign activities carried out by Independents. Because it is claimed that premodern electioneering is still a feature of Irish campaigns, I expect to find this to the case for Independents. Although Benoit and Marsh (2003a, 2003b) found that spending more money during a campaign is correlated with gaining more votes (including for Independents), it is difficult to have any clear expectation regarding the
influence of campaigning on Independents’ electoral performance. Nevertheless, the declining levels of partisan attachment, and the relative lack of importance of policies and ideologies in affecting voters’ decisions on polling day (see next section), combined with Independents’ lack of a partisan label, would suggest that such candidates are reliant on their campaign to deliver a vote. For these reasons, both the strength and the importance of Independents’ campaigns might go some way to explaining why they have a significant presence in Irish politics.