Search results

ZusammenfassungDer Einfluss des Primärumfeldes auf die Bereitschaft, an Wahlen oder Abstimmungen teilzunehmen, ist unbestritten. Die bisherige Forschung dazu beruhte aber hauptsächlich auf Experimental‐ oder Befragungsdaten, die systematische Messfehler (Overreporting) aufweisen oder sich nur auf einzelne Wahltermine beziehen. Ziel der Untersuchung ist deshalb eine präzisere, von zufälligen oder systematischen Fehlern unverzerrte Schätzung des Haushalts auf die grundlegende Beteiligungsdisposition. Möglich ist dies dank amtlichen Vollerhebungsdaten zu 18 verschiedenen Urnengängen in rund einem Dutzend St. Galler Gemeinden. Die entsprechende Analyse zeigt, dass der Löwenanteil der individuellen Beteiligungsbereitschaft auf Haushaltsebene variiert.

AbstractThere already exists an impressive body of literature studying the use of voting recommendations in elections and popular votes. The main shortcoming of most of these observational studies is the measurement of voting recommendations. There is rarely any direct evidence to show that voters did indeed follow a recommendation when making a vote decision. Thus, it is not clear how widespread the use of such voting endorsements is. We measured the use of endorsements by evaluating the voting motives reported by the voters themselves. Employing this measure, we could show that endorsements have an impact on Swiss referendum votes. Depending on the issue at stake, between 2 and 27 percent of the voters admitted that they based their decision on recommendations. Moreover, the use of endorsements heavily depends on motivation, project‐specific knowledge level, and degree of ambivalence towards the issue at stake.

AbstractAfter the vote of 9 February 2014, many attributed the surprising result to voter ignorance. The basic claim was that the majority of those voting in favour of the initiative possessed only a weak understanding of what the likely outcome(s) would be if their choice prevailed. However, the analysis of the voters' knowledge level shows that they were comparably well aware of what the proposal at hand was about. Moreover, most voters voted their true preferences. They were also well aware about the possible economic ramifications acceptance could have for the relationship between Switzerland and the European Union and they were willing to take the risk. However, what should give the initiative's opponents a glimmer of hope is the fact that a majority believed that the principle of free movement would somehow be negotiable. Given the ongoing refusal of the EU to renegotiate that principle, these voters might have become less confident about its negotiability than they were before the vote.

AbstractCorrect voting in elections has been extensively analysed in the recent past. However, thus far, correct voting in direct legislation has hardly been investigated. This is all the more surprising since direct legislation is a more demanding form of democracy and, thus, to vote one's true preferences in direct legislation represents a greater challenge than picking the "right" party or the "right" candidate at elections. Moreover, the few researches on the correctness of individual referendum votes used a measurement method that we think has some methodological shortfalls. Instead, we want to propose another better‐suited method of measuring correct voting in direct legislation settings. This method makes use of voters' stances on the issue at stake. Besides, we will scrutinize the share of correct voting as well as its determinants on the Swiss popular vote of November 2009, which included three rather different propositions. The study shows that a majority of Swiss voters are indeed able to vote their true preferences. The ability to vote correctly depends primarily on the individual voter's project‐specific knowledge, but also, under certain circumstances, on the use of heuristics.

Die politische Kognitionspsychologie hat nachweisen können, dass mentale Entscheidungshilfen auch bei Wahlen und Sachabstimmungen häufig angewendet werden. Während die individuellen Bestimmungsgründe der Heuristikverwendung gut erforscht sind, ist über die kontextuellen Bedingungen wenig bekannt. Welche Eigenschaften der Entscheidungssituation begünstigen die Verwendung von Heuristiken bzw. machen sie wenig wahrscheinlich? Der Beitrag geht dieser Frage am Beispiel von Schweizer Sachabstimmungen nach. Dabei wird die Heuristikverwendung zum ersten Mal auf der Basis der Stimmmotivangaben der Vox-Befragten erhoben. Die Analyse zeigt, dass die Komplexität der Vorlage die Angewiesenheit auf Heuristiken signifikant erhöht. Daneben üben auch noch die Konfliktintensität und das Vertrauen in den Bundesrat einen Einfluss auf das Ausmaß der Heuristikverwendung aus. Letzteres zeigt den nach wie vor starken Einfluss des Bundesrates auf die Meinungsbildung der Stimmbürgerschaft, aber gleichzeitig auch das Risiko für Behördenvorlagen, die in Zeiten sinkenden Regierungsvertrauens dem Volk vorgelegt werden. (ICB2)

Cognitive psychology differentiates between the systematic & the heuristic type of information processing. Research on Swiss referendums has demonstrated that cognitively demanding heuristics are rarely used. Even party slogans are hardly ever considered in making voting decisions -- and only a fraction of the voting populace even knows them. However, that does not mean that Swiss voters systematically process political information. Empirical research shows that in spite of their lack of knowledge of party slogans party followers routinely vote in accordance with them. On the basis of an analysis of two similar referendums the article discusses explanations for this phenomenon. Systematic reception of arguments often depends on heuristics such as party support whereas systematic processing of content often takes place under the guidance of a preferred party. Adapted from the source document.