Elections and Resource Mobilization: A Theoretical Model for Explanation of Electoral Competitions

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to present a theoretical model for explaining how one or more candidates or parties defeat their rivals and win in the national elections. Based on the framework of resource mobilization theory (RMT), different factors at different levels which determine the probability of the victory of a candidate in the presidential and parliamentary elections will be examined. The electoral resources—which are crucial to the success of candidates— include a collection of resource (e.g., explicit and hidden knowledge resources (KR), needs resources (NR), power resources (PR), influence and persuasion, moral resources (MR), facilitation resources (FR), and unforeseen resources (UR)). The relative importance and effectiveness of these six electoral resources are dissimilar. For instance, moral resources are the most sensitive and necessary requirements for entering an election race and remaining throughout the entire election cycle. Knowledge resources are second in importance, and their effectiveness primarily depend on a candidate's capabilities. The financial resources and social mobilization network are two of the facilitation resources which help to reduce a candidate's electoral expenses and/or increase his/her social and political capital. Among the unforeseen resources, the unfortunate events (e.g., wars, terror attacks, and economic crises) might provide opportunities for the conservative candidates, while the incidence of peace and favorable weather conditions often create opportunities for the reformist and change-seeking candidates.
The author attempts to find appropriate answers to the following primary and secondary research questions: 1. How do candidates win the elections against their competitors in electoral competitions? 2. What resources are needed to win the elections? 3. How should these resources be mobilized? In the hypothesis of the present study, it is claimed that the victory of a candidate in an election depends largely on a combination of factors, notably the resource mobilization, the degree of success in persuading the voters and other stakeholders in the elections to support their candidacy, and the amount of luck resulted from particular unforeseen events with positive consequences for the candidate, or negative consequences for the rival candidates. Within the theoretical framework of resource mobilization theory, the method of data collection and analysis is based on a careful review and qualitative content analysis of the available evidence and the arguments presented in earlier studies on the subject of presidential and parliamentary elections and voting behaviors. The findings of previous research have indicated that the probability of success of a candidate is higher than the other competitors, when a candidate or his/her political party use the best way to mobilize electoral resources to persuade the voters and other actors in different stages of the election process—ranging from registration, qualification, debates, nomination, voting, post-election acceptance—to support him/her instead of other candidates. The main conclusion of the research is that the availability of the electoral resources is important, but their timely mobilization and allocation in the optimal way by a candidate and his/her supporters are crucial in persuading the key actors (i.e., the electoral officials who must approve his/her credentials, the media and powerful political parties and factions who must nominate and publicize their support for him/her, and the voters who vote) to act in his/her favor. Persuasion is the result of prudent resource mobilization, and luck is increased by the occurrence of unanticipated events with repercussions for the outcome of the elections.

Keywords

References

  1. References                                                            

    1. The Holy Quran.
    2. André, A; and et al. (2015). “Electoral Systems and Legislators’ Constituency Effort: The Mediating Effect of Electoral Vulnerability,” Comparative Political Studies 48, 4: 464-496, .
    3. Austin, J.L; and et al. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd
    4. Ayyubi, H. (1998). "Tahlil-e raftār-e entekhābāti-ye rai'dahandegān (Analysis of Electoral Behavior of Voters- Part II,” Ettela'at-e siyāsī and eghtesādī (Political and Economic Information Journal) 137-138: 100-111. Available at: https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/ 20101210141213-849.pdf (Accessed 9 December 2022). [In Persian]
    5. Bassi, A. (2013). “Weather, Mood, and Voting: An Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Weather beyond Turnout,” SSRN: ssrn.com, <DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2273189>.
    6. Berg, A.V.D; Janoski, T. (2005). “Conflict Theories in Political Sociology,” in Thomas Janoski, et al, eds. The Handbook of Political Sociology; States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 72-96.
    7. Besley, T. (2005). “Political Selection,” Journal of Economic Perspective 19, 3: 43-60. Available at SSRN:  https://ssrn.com/ abstract=895514 (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    8. Brams, S. (2008). The Presidential Election Game. Wellesley, MA: A K Peters/CRS Press.
    9. Birch, S. (2016). "Our New Voters: Brexit, Political Mobilization and the Emerging Electoral Cleavage," Juncture 23, 2: 107-110, <DOI:10.1111/newe.12003>. Available at:https:// onlinelibrary .wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1111/newe.12003 (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    10. Burns, A. (2019). “Beto O’Rourke Drops Out of the Presidential Race,” The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes. com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    11. Cambridge Cognition. (2015). "What is Cognition?" Cambridge- cognition.com. Available at: https://cambridgecognition. Com/ what-is-cognition  (Accessed 11 April 2020).
    12. Caughell, L. (2016). “When Playing the Woman Card is Playing Trump: Assessing the Efficacy of Framing Campaigns as Historic,” PS: Political Science & Politics 49, 4: 736-742, .
    13. Colorado Resource Mobilization Working Group, for the Colorado Division of Fire Safety. (2010). State of Colorado Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan. Available at: https://www.codot. gov/business/ emergency-flood-information/ state-of-colo-emerg-res-mob-plan.pdf (Accessed 2 July 2022).
    14. The Constitutional Council. (2023). “Qānoon-e entekhābāt-e majlis-e shorā-ye Islāmi-ye Iran, bā eslāhāt and elhāghāt ta tārikh-e 1/5/1402 (The Election Law of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran, with Amendments and Additions until 23 July 2023),” shora-gc.ir. Available at: https://www.shora-gc.ir/ fa/ news/5730 (Accessed 9 December 2022). [In Persian]
    15. The Constitutional Council. (2013). “Qānoon-e entekhābāt-e riāsat-e jomhori-ye Islāmi-ye Iran and eslāhāt-e badi, 4/5/1364 (The Law of the Presidential Election of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Subsequent Amendments, 26 June 1985),” shora-gc.ir. Available at: https://www.shora-gc.ir/fa/news/2952 (Accessed 9 December 2022). [In Persian]
    16. Cress, D.M; Snow, D.A (2000). “The Outcomes of Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing,” American Journal of Sociology 105, 4: 1063-1104, .
    17. Dehkhoda (n.d.) Log/hat’nāmeh-ye dehkkhodā (The Dehkhoda Dictionary). Available at: https://dehkhoda.ut.ac.ir/fa/dictionary (Accessed 9 December 2022). [In Persian]
    18. Dowling, D.M.; Wichowsky, A. (2015). “Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising,” American Journal of Political Science 59, 1: 19-36, <DOI:1111/ajps.12094>.
    19. Fairclough, I; Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
    20. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. New York: Longman.
    21. Fisher, E.J; Gonzalez, Y.S. (2013) "The Art of Influencing and Persuasion: How Managers Can Put ‘Square Pegs’ into ‘Round Holes’," Journal of Management Research 5, 4: 1-19, . Available at: https://www.macrothink. org/journal/index.php/jmr/article/view/3971/0 (Accessed 4 June 2022).
    22. Foa, E.B.; Foa, U.G. (2012). “Resource Theory of Social Exchange,” in Kjell Törnblom and Ali Kazemi, eds. Handbook of Social Resource Theory: Theoretical Extensions, Empirical Insights, and Social Applications. New York: Springer, 15-33.
    23. Frank, R.H. (2020). Under the Influence Putting Peer Pressure to Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    24. Fredén, A; and et al. (2020). “Betting on the Underdog: The Influence of Social Networks on Vote Choice,” Political Science Research and Methods 1–8, <DOI:10.1017/psrm.2020.21>.
    25. Garramone, G.M. (1984). “Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads,” Journalism Quarterly 6, 2: 250-259, <DOI:1177/ 1077699084061002>.
    26. Gheisari, N; and et al. (2016). "Entekhābāt-e riāsat'jomhori dar Irān; olgoi nazari barāye tabein-e pirozi-ye yek cāndid bar roghabā, The Presidential Elections in Iran: A Theoretical Model to Explain the Victory of a Candidate over His Competitors," Fasl’nāmeh-ye pajohesh’hā-ye rāhbordi-ye siyāsat, Strategic Policy Research Quarterly, 6, 21: 41-72, 22054/qpss. 2017.7686>. [In Persian]
    27. Gheisari, N; and et al. (2014). "Modiriat-e entekhābāt dar Irān; kayfiyat and arzyābi-ye ejrā (Election Management in Iran; Quality and Implementation Evaluation)," Fasl’nāmeh-ye pajohesh’hā-ye rāhbordi-ye siyāsat, Strategic Policy Research Quarterly, 4, 13: 39-34. Available at: https://qpss.atu.ac.ir/ article_1501.html (Accessed 27 October 2022). [In Persian]
    28. Herrera, H. (2016). “Turnout across Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science 60, 3: 607-624, <DOI: 10.1111/ ajps.12215>.
    29. Herzenstein, M. (2010). “Persuasion,” in Jagdish N. Sheth et al., eds. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. New York: Wiley, <DOI:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem03011>.
    30. Hewitt, V. (2008). Political Mobilization and Democracy in India; States of Emergency. London and New York: Routledge.
    31. Holander, C.D; and et al. (2012). “Transformation Networks: A Study of How Technological Complexity Impacts Economic Performance,” in Andrea Teglio, ed. (2012) Managing Market Complexity: The Approach of Artificial Economics. Berlin and New York: Springer.
    32. Ivarsflaten, E. (2008). “What Unites Right-Wing Populists in Western Europe? Re-Examining Grievance Mobilization Models in Seven Successful Cases Western European Right-Wing Populists,” Comparative Political Studies  41, 1: 3-23, <DOI:1177/ 001041400629416>.
    33. Jenkins, J.C. (1983). “Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements,” Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553, <DOI:1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002523>.
    34. Jones, J.J. (2016). “Talk “Like a Man”: The Linguistic Styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013,” Perspective on Politics 14, 3: 625-642, .
    35. Keshavarz Shokri, A; Farhadi, E. (2011). "Basij-e manābeh-ye enghelāb-e eslāmī-ʼi Iran, Mobilization of Resources in Iran's Islamic Revolution," Pajohesh’nāmeh-ye enghelāb-e eslāmi (Journal of the Islamic Revolution, 1, 1: 107-79. Available at: https://rjir.basu.ac.ir/article_4.html (Accessed 28 October 2022). [In Persian]
    36. Kitchens, J.T; Powell, L. (2015). The Four Pillars of Politics: Why Some Candidates Don’t Win and Others Can't Lead. New York: Lexington Books.
    37. Lem, S.; Dowling, C.M (2006). “Picking Their Spots: Minor Party Candidates in Gubernatorial Elections,” Political Research Quarterly 59, 3: 471- 480, <DOI:10.1177/ 106591290605900314>.
    38. MacWilliams, M.C. (2016). “Who Decides When the Party Doesn’t? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump,” PS: Political Science & Politics 49, 4: 716-721, .
    39. Marwell, G; Oliver, P (1993). The Critical Mass in Collective Action, A Micro Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    40. McCarthy, J.D; Zald, M.N (1977). “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory,” American Journal of Sociology 82, 6:1212-124. Available at: https://www.journals. uchicago. Edu/doi/ 10.1086/226464 (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    41. McCarthy, J.D.; Zald, M.N (2006). “Resource Mobilization Theory: Vigorous or Outmoded?” in Jonathan H. Turner, ed. Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer, 533-567.
    42. McDonald, M; and et al. (2020). “Running as a Woman? Candidate Presentation in the 2018 Midterms,” Political Research Quarterly 73, 4: 967-987, .
    43. McGhee, E. (2008).“The Role of Candidate Choice in the California Recall Election,” American Politics Research 37, 3: 465-485, <DOI:10.1177/1532673X08322816>.
    44. Mirhashemi, S.M; and et al. (2018). "Tahlil-e mazmoon’hā-ye talimi-ye golestān bar bonyād-e nazariyeh-e konesh-e goftār-e searle (Analysis of the Didactic Themes of Golestan on the Bass of Searle's Theory of Speech Acts)," Pajohesh’hā-ye adabi (Literary Research) 15, 60: 141-176. Available at: https://lire.modares.ac.ir/article-41-29190-fa.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2022). [In Persian]
    45. Mobus G.E.; Kalton, M.C (2015). Principles of Systems Science. New York: Springer.
    46. Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    47. Oyibo, K; Vassileva, J. (2019). “The Relationship between Personality Traits and Susceptibility to Social Influence,” Computers in Human Behavior 98: 174-188, . Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S074756321930041X (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    48. Pontusson, J; Rueda, D. (2010). “The Politics of Inequality: Voter Mobilization and Left Parties in Advanced Industrial States,” Comparative Political Studies 43, 6: 675-705, <DOI: 10.1177/ 0010414009358672>.
    49. Rocklage, M.D; and et al. (2018). “The Evaluative Lexicon 2.0: The Measurement of Emotionality, Extremity, and Valence in Language,” Behavior Research Methods 50: 1327-1344, . Available at: https://link.springer.com/ article/ 10.3758/ s13428-017-0975-6 (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    50. Russell, B. (2009). The Basic Writings. London: Routledge.
    51. Tilly, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: Random House.
    52. Tindall, J.A. (2006). Applying Network Theory to Develop a Dedicated National Intelligence Network, Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Security Studies, Homeland Security and Defense, Naval Postgraduate School, USA, Available at https://apps.dtic. mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA457170.pdf (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    53. Vráblíková, K. (2014). “How Context Matters? Mobilization, Political Opportunity Structures, and Nonelectoral Political Participation in Old and New Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies 47, 2: 203-229, 1177/0010414013488538>.
    54. Wall, I. (2014). France Vote: The Election of François Hollande. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    55. Warren, E. (2019). “The Best President Money Can’t Buy,” Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/the-best-president-money-cant-buy-1adfbe01a344 (Accessed 25 November ‌‌2022).
    56. Xu, W; Wu, W. (2020). Optimal Social Influence. New York: Springer.
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
Volume 53, Issue 2
September 2023
Pages 342-315

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 July 2020
  • Revise Date: 20 August 2023
  • Accept Date: 08 September 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics