Television and presidentialism

Australian and U.S. legislative elections compared

Bibliographic Data

ID7351622
AuthorsAnthony Mughan (The Ohio State University, corresponding author)
Year1995
Volume12
Issue3
Pages327-342
Publication date1995-07-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Communication (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1058-4609 • E-ISSN: 1091-7675
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10584609.1995.9963077
OpenAlexW1972428462
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited21

The argument is commonly made that television has changed the character of parliamentary elections. Its ever more central role in election campaigns outside the United States is held to have "presidentialized" parliamentary elections because it is a medium that projects personalities more effectively than ideas or policies. A comparison of the electoral roles of the Australian prime minister and the U.S. president indicates that both leaders are held personally accountable for government performance. However, such "presidentialism" appears to have little to do with television in Australia or in the United States. Television‐dependent citizens in both countries are less susceptible to the campaign appeals of chief executives than the rest of the voting public. Both leaders, but especially the president, do have an electoral impact. Counter to expectations, however, this impact makes itself felt in both cases among those voters who are not dependent on television for their political information and cues. Party identification seems to insulate the television‐dependent more successfully against leader effects

Argument (complex analysis · General election · Government (linguistics · Legislature · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Prime minister · Sociology · Voting · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Media Studies and Communication · Public Administration · Social Media and Politics

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub