Ideological proximity, issue importance, and vote choice

Abstract Research into the impact of a politician's sociodemographic profile on vote choice in Westminster-style systems has been hindered by the relative sociodemographic homogeneity of party leaders. Past research has focused mainly on the evaluation of local candidates in the American context, but given that elections in plurality systems are far less candidate-oriented , the evaluation of local candidates tells us little about the prevalence of affinity or discrimination in other contexts. This article investigates the effect of political leaders' ethnicity on political behavior by looking at the case of Jagmeet Singh in Canada, the first federal party leader of color in the country's history. While the literature has shown that the gender of leaders in Canada can matter, little is known about the attitudes of Canadians toward party leaders of color specifically. We are interested in the evaluations of Singh and his party, as well as the shifts in voting intentions between elections in 2015 and 2019. We uncover affinity-based behaviors from individuals who identify as Sikh, as well as a negative reception of Singh's candidacy in Quebec.

Download Full-text

Candidate sex, corruption and vote choice

Electoral Studies ◽

10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102270 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 69 ◽

pp. 102270

Author(s):

Carmen Le Foulon ◽

Catherine Reyes-Housholder

Keyword(s):

Vote Choice

Download Full-text

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Political Science Research and Methods ◽

10.1017/psrm.2021.20 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-19

Author(s):

Alex Badas ◽

Elizabeth Simas

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Political Behavior ◽

Strong Predictor ◽

Vote Choice ◽

Senate Elections ◽

Primary Election ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Conjoint Experiment ◽

Analyze Data

Abstract Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.

Download Full-text

Preferences, vote choice, and the politics of social investment: Addressing the puzzle of unequal benefits of childcare provision

Journal of Social Policy ◽

10.1017/s0047279421000325 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-20

Author(s):

ERIK NEIMANNS

Keyword(s):

Political Parties ◽

Voting Behavior ◽

Vote Choice ◽

Left Wing ◽

Social Investment ◽

Individual Level ◽

Individual Preferences ◽

Electoral Support ◽

Research Gap ◽

Original Survey

Abstract Research on the politics of social investment finds public opinion to be highly supportive of expansive reforms and expects this support to matter for the politics of expanding social investment. Expanding social investment, it is argued, should be particularly attractive to left-wing voters and parties because of the egalitarian potential of such policies. However, few studies have examined to what extent individual preferences concerning social investment really matter politically. In this paper, I address this research gap for the crucial policy field of childcare by examining how individual-level preferences for expanding childcare provision translate into voting behavior. Based on original survey data from eight European countries, I find that preferences to expand public childcare spending indeed translate into electoral support for the left. However, this link from preferences to votes turns out to be socially biased. Childcare preferences are much more decisive for voting the further up individuals are in the income distribution. This imperfect transmission from preferences to voting behavior implies that political parties could have incentives to target the benefits of childcare reforms to their more affluent voters. My findings help to explain why governments frequently fail to reduce social inequality of access to seemingly egalitarian childcare provision.

Download Full-text