The table, at the end of this report, recapitulates the chief characteristics of the three models described above. It must not be forgotten that what we are dealing with here are “ideal/typical” models. Instances of them in history are often more complex and the developments less clearcut. This is because the models described as being successive are still in part concurrent and sometimes intermeshed. The elitist model of top-down democracy based on patronage has not completely disappeared and here and there residual pockets may still be observed and there may even be episodic reversions in the behaviour of present-day electors. This is still more often the case for the great dominant model of the twentieth century – mass democracy. A social movement inspired by active minorities and orchestrated in street demonstrations is enough to make the public – which had voted for an enterprise dedicated to resolving a major problem –
realign itself behind the spokesman of the categories to which it belongs. What was formerly called the gross variables of electoral behaviour (objective social class, subjective social class and religious affiliation, in particular) are doubtless no longer as healthy as they used to be, but strong traces of them linger on and re-emerge to interrupt the regular decline in their explanatory power. The fact is that voting has never been and doubtless will never be one-dimensional, a feature which it shares with all human behaviour. Moreover, it is this which adds to the interest taken bymany players and observers in hybrid systems.