| OCR Text |
Show 10 the niche parties. Since adding in niche party agency is a key contribution of this project, I reject this implication. Political parties and candidates compete over issues. Even when a mainstream party emphasizes a niche issue, the party and their candidates might not be perceived, by voters or the niche party, as adequately addressing the issue; it could be more akin to lip service, so there is still room to compete on the issue. This interaction of strategy needs to be captured rather than giving immediate claim to the issue to mainstream parties. The second weakness of the minimalist definition is that it is almost too simple. By saying "a niche party emphasizes policy areas neglected by its competitors," there are no stipulations placed on the number of policy areas a niche party can emphasize at any given time (Meyer and Miller 2015, 261). This has created complications where Conservative parties, for example, are coming across almost as niche-like as a nationalist (niche) party (Bischof 2015, 3). In order to clearly differentiate between niche and mainstream parties, it is necessary to add one condition, employed in other works like Meguid (2005 and 2008), which is that niche parties have a narrow focus or limited party platform. This addition prevents mainstream parties with comprehensive platforms from being inadvertently included in with the niche parties. To summarize and expand upon my conceptualization, at their creation, niche parties center around one magnetic issue, or cluster of related issues, that attracts attention and votes.3 For example, a minority containment/cultural protection (MCCP) niche party could use fear of immigrants and/or Islam to push for the related issue of stronger law and order. I would not necessarily describe the issues raised by niche parties 3 This distinguishes my niche party definition from the concept/label of a ‘single-issue' party in the strictest sense. |
