| OCR Text |
Show 163 interaction terms may provide more insight. Furthermore, in terms of the strategic interactions, the variables were constructed based on the platforms of both mainstream and niche parties, but, as previously discussed, mainstream parties respond more to actions rather than words. Similar to the socioeconomic versions, making these variable adjustments would be a fruitful next step. Strategic interactions, and interaction terms more broadly, have not been disproved, but the shortcomings of my selected components have been highlighted. This research process has revealed ways in which my approach and variables can be improved for future research. Where, Who, and the EU: Secondary Findings with Potential Finally, there are three secondary findings and themes to note. These themes have potential that, if further explored and developed, could be used to fuel future avenues of research on niche parties. The three secondary findings are: the type of party, geographical considerations (i.e., Eastern compared to Western Europe or newer compared to older EU member states), and European Parliament election results. First of all, when the models controlled for the type of party, this indicated that environmental niche parties are expected to experience lower levels of electoral success than the MCCP niches. Environmental niche parties get roughly three percent less in terms of votes and nine fewer seats. While this project largely looks at niche parties as a group with hypotheses applying to all niches, regardless of type, except with the socioeconomic cluster of variables, it would be interesting to take a closer look at the nuanced differences between the specific types of niche parties. |
