Policy proximity and candidate repositioning: The value of consistency

Candidates and parties often have to decide in campaigns whether to remain consistent on policy positions that do not match the median voter or reposition towards moderate. This type of strategic ‘flip-flopping’ is controversial and debated regularly in the media. This study provides causal evidence on this topic by placing candidates and voters on the same policy scale in an experimental setting (n = 4351). Candidates randomly reposition to the centre, extremes, or remain consistent on a non-median position. This creates a test of repositioning versus consistency within the framework of proximity voting. To precisely estimate proximity, the policy is operationalized as numbers: preferred number of asylum seekers resettled annually. Results show that consistent positioning caused a substantial increase in favorability among those who were proximally close. This suggests that consistency is especially important to voters who hold the same position as the candidate. Repositioning toward respondents’ position did not change favorability, but repositioning away from respondents caused a reduction in favorability. The strategically important median voter subgroup did not increase support for candidates who adopted their preferred position. Taken together, this suggests that consistently supporting a non-median immigration policy is preferred to repositioning to the middle.