The same party and the same programme do better or worse depending on who carries them

The argument

A second argument for the influence of charisma rests on variation that policy cannot explain. Proponents point out that parties run on broadly the same programme from one contest to the next while changing their leader, and that their fortunes move with the change; that a party can be led to an unexpected victory and then, with the platform intact, to defeat under a successor; and that candidates of the same party in comparable places, standing on identical commitments, perform differently in ways their local organisations notice and discuss. If the programme is held constant and the result moves, proponents argue, the moving part is the person presenting it. The second strand concerns what a compelling candidate makes possible. Proponents argue that charisma does much of its work indirectly: it recruits volunteers, draws donations from people who would not otherwise give, produces the crowds and clips that fill coverage without being paid for, and lifts turnout among supporters who might otherwise stay at home. Each of those is a resource, and resources translate into contacts with voters. On this account personal appeal is not merely an impression in a voter's mind but a machine for generating the means of campaigning. Proponents also note that the effect runs in both directions, which they take as a sign that something real is being observed. Candidates who present badly can cost a party support it would otherwise have had, and parties treat this as a known risk rather than as commentary, which is why so much effort goes into deciding who should be the one to stand.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Sceptics argue that each comparison smuggles in the conditions. A party's fortunes move when it changes leader largely because leaders are changed when fortunes are already falling, and successors take over in circumstances that have shifted anyway, so leader and conditions cannot be separated. Variation between candidates of the same party tracks local organisation, incumbency and the composition of the seat at least as well as personal appeal. On resources they argue the causation is unclear: candidates who look likely to win attract volunteers and donations, so the appeal may be a symptom of expected victory rather than its cause.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Leaders are usually changed when a party's fortunes are already falling, and successors take over in altered circumstances, so the change of leader and the change of conditions cannot be separated. [Rejecting P2] Differences between candidates of the same party track incumbency, local organisation and the composition of the seat at least as well as personal appeal. [Rejecting P3] Volunteers and donations may follow an expectation of victory rather than produce it, which would make appeal a symptom rather than a cause. [Rejecting C] The premises show that results vary with more than the programme, which is not yet evidence that the varying factor is charisma.