Partisan Dealignment

Concept: contrast with realignment

Campbell (1960) saw stable party identification as a buffer against short-term electoral swings that kept party systems stable. Realignment is a durable shift of support from one party to another, whereas dealignment is a weakening of party ties themselves. Inglehart and Hochstein (1972) used the concept early in comparing France and the United States, and Nie, Verba and Petrocik (1976) documented rising independence and issue voting in the US.

Causes: cognitive mobilization and social change

Dalton (1984) proposed the cognitive mobilization hypothesis: rising education and mass media gave voters the capacity to process political information themselves, reducing their need for parties as shortcuts. Franklin, Mackie and Valen (1992) showed that voting based on class and religious cleavages declined across Western countries. The result was growth in cognitively engaged apartisans who are interested in politics but unattached to parties.

Consequences and debate

Dalton and Wattenberg (2000) assembled evidence that party identification weakened and volatility rose in most advanced democracies, calling them parties without partisans. Dalton (2012) reported a large rise in well-educated apartisans in Germany. Others counter that in the United States partisan sorting and polarization since the 1990s have strengthened party identification again.

FAQ

What is partisan dealignment in simple terms?

Fewer people stick with one party as they used to, and more see themselves as independents without attachment to any party.

How does it differ from realignment?

Realignment is support moving to another party and settling there; dealignment is voters no longer being strongly tied to any party.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Inglehart, R., & Hochstein, A. (1972). Alignment and dealignment of the electorate in France and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 5(3), 343–372. Early comparative use of the concept.
2. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Harvard University Press. Weakening partisanship in the US.
3. Dalton, R. J. (1984). Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies. The Journal of Politics, 46(1), 264–284. Cognitive mobilization thesis.
4. Franklin, M. N., Mackie, T. T., & Valen, H. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. Cambridge University Press. Decline of cleavage voting.
5. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.). (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press. Comprehensive cross-national evidence.
6. Dalton, R. J. (2012). Apartisans and the changing German electorate. Electoral Studies, 31(1), 35–45. Apartisans in Germany.
7. Campbell, A. (1960). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(3), 397–418. Partisanship as a stabilizer.