Abstract
False diagnostics are dangerous if they lead to false therapies . This is also true for election analyses . Diagnostic trends such as “Polarization” and “a new Cleavage” currently dominate the field . Despite being supposed to provide clarity, an in-depth analysis of various parties’ programs seems to hint at centrifugal rather than polarizing forces . If the diagnostic trends were accurate, election results on the federal and state level should align . Traditionally, the same two strongest parties dominated specific regions regardless of state or federal elections - only the results of smaller parties showed regional differences . This pattern, however, no longer describes the current political landscape with significant regional differences which party got the most votes in state and federal elections . Polarization simply cannot overcome the ambiguity of having to root one’s political program in highly accentuated regional party systems and at the same time provide general political directions on a federal level .
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
