Demographic change is one of the biggest challenges with regard to social and economic developments in Germany. The public debate mainly focuses on negative effects for social security systems. However, analyzing potential results of an ageing population for political attitudes and political behavior of the citizenry does not play a major role in scientific research so far. Based on a recent survey this article first examines age-specific differences in individual political attitudes. Second, we analyze possible determinants of age-specific party vote choice. We find age-specific attitudes, which -- at least in part -- do have an impact on party choice. Adapted from the source document.
This article investigates the moderating effect of social context on the relationship between religion and vote choice. Whereas theories of electoral research and the sociology of religion assume a linear contextual effect, we develop a new theoretical argument that predicts a non-linear effect. The results of logistic multilevel analyses confirm this theory for the Catholic milieu: The effect of catholic denomination on voting for the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) first increases with the share of Catholics in the context and decreases when they are in the clear majority. This finding - which contradicts former studies - holds for all federal elections under consideration (1994-2009), withstands several robustness tests and provides important evidence for the perpetuation of the traditional Catholic voting norm through group processes. Adapted from the source document.
The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors; election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post-election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election; language of questionnaire. Demography: year and month of birth; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private, and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; number of children in household under the age of 6; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; region of residence; race; ethnicity; rural or urban residence; primary electoral district; country of birth; year arrived in current country. Survey variables: perception of public expenditure on health, education, unemployment benefits, defense, old-age pensions, business and industry, police and law enforcement, welfare benefits; perception of improving individual standard of living, state of economy, government's action on income inequality; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current and the previous election; difference who is in power and who people vote for; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of parties on the left-right-scale and/or an alternative scale; self-assessment on a left-right-scale and an optional scale; satisfaction with democracy; party identification; intensity of party identification, institutional and personal contact in the electoral campaigning, in person, by mail, phone, text message, email or social networks, institutional contact by whom; political information questions; expected development of household income in the next twelve month; ownership of residence, business or property or farm or livestock, stocks or bonds, savings; likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month; spouse likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month. DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district. MACRO-LEVEL DATA: election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; party of the president and the prime minister before and after the election; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; size of the cabinet after the most recent election; number of parties participating in election; ideological families of parties; left-right position of parties assigned by experts and alternative dimensions; most salient factors in the election; fairness of the election; formal complaints against national level results; election irregularities reported; scheduled and held date of election; irregularities of election date; extent of election violence and post-election violence; geographic concentration of violence; post-election protest; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement and types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; votes cast; voting procedure; voting rounds; party lists close, open, or flexible; transferable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; compulsory voting; party threshold; unit for the threshold; freedom house rating; democracy-autocracy polity IV rating; age of the current regime; regime: type of executive; number of months since last lower house and last presidential election; electoral formula for presidential elections; electoral formula in all electoral tiers (majoritarian, proportional or mixed); for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; linked electoral segments; dependent formulae in mixed systems; subtypes of mixed electoral systems; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; fused vote; size of the lower house; GDP growth (annual percent); GDP per capita; inflation, GDP Deflator (annual percent); Human development index; total population; total unemployment; TI corruption perception index; international migrant stock and net migration rate; general government final consumption expenditure; public spending on education; health expenditure; military expenditure; central government debt; Gini index; internet users per 100 inhabitants; mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants; fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants; daily newspapers; constitutional federal structure; number of legislative chambers; electoral results data available; effective number of electoral and parliamentary parties.
The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors; election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post-election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election; language of questionnaire. Demography: year and month of birth; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private, and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; number of children in household under the age of 6; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; region of residence; race; ethnicity; rural or urban residence; primary electoral district; country of birth; year arrived in current country. Survey variables: perception of public expenditure on health, education, unemployment benefits, defense, old-age pensions, business and industry, police and law enforcement, welfare benefits; perception of improving individual standard of living, state of economy, government's action on income inequality; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current and the previous election; difference who is in power and who people vote for; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of parties on the left-right-scale and/or an alternative scale; self-assessment on a left-right-scale and an optional scale; satisfaction with democracy; party identification; intensity of party identification, institutional and personal contact in the electoral campaigning, in person, by mail, phone, text message, email or social networks, institutional contact by whom; political information questions; expected development of household income in the next twelve month; ownership of residence, business or property or farm or livestock, stocks or bonds, savings; likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month; spouse likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month. DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district. MACRO-LEVEL DATA: election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; party of the president and the prime minister before and after the election; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; size of the cabinet after the most recent election; number of parties participating in election; ideological families of parties; left-right position of parties assigned by experts and alternative dimensions; most salient factors in the election; fairness of the election; formal complaints against national level results; election irregularities reported; scheduled and held date of election; irregularities of election date; extent of election violence and post-election violence; geographic concentration of violence; post-election protest; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement and types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; votes cast; voting procedure; voting rounds; party lists close, open, or flexible; transferable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; compulsory voting; party threshold; unit for the threshold; freedom house rating; democracy-autocracy polity IV rating; age of the current regime; regime: type of executive; number of months since last lower house and last presidential election; electoral formula for presidential elections; electoral formula in all electoral tiers (majoritarian, proportional or mixed); for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; linked electoral segments; dependent formulae in mixed systems; subtypes of mixed electoral systems; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; fused vote; size of the lower house; GDP growth (annual percent); GDP per capita; inflation, GDP Deflator (annual percent); Human development index; total population; total unemployment; TI corruption perception index; international migrant stock and net migration rate; general government final consumption expenditure; public spending on education; health expenditure; military expenditure; central government debt; Gini index; internet users per 100 inhabitants; mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants; fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants; daily newspapers; constitutional federal structure; number of legislative chambers; electoral results data available; effective number of electoral and parliamentary parties.
'Der Aufstieg der FPÖ in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren gelang ihr als Oppositionspartei während der Zeit der großen Koalition. Sie gewann ihre Stimmen im gleichen Ausmaß von SPÖ und ÖVP. Während die ÖVP vorwiegend Ende der 1980er Jahre 'zur Ader gelassen' wurde, kam die Zeit der starken SPÖ-Verluste in den 1990er Jahren. Der Abstieg der FPÖ begann unmittelbar nach ihrem Eintritt in die Bundesregierung bei verschiedenen Landtagswahlen in den Jahren 2000 bis 2004 - nur die Landtagswahl in Kärnten bildet hier eine Ausnahme. Bei der Nationalratswahl 2002 erfolgte der größte Wählerstrom in der österreichischen Wahlgeschichte von der FPÖ zur ÖVP. Am Tag der Nationalratswahl spiegelten sich in den Wahlmotiven dieser WählerInnen vor allem die Enttäuschung über die FPÖ sowie die Zufriedenheit mit der Regierungsarbeit des Kabinetts Schüssel I wider. Die FPÖ-ÖVP-Abwanderer teilen mit den anderen ÖVP-WählerInnen eine ähnliche Selbsteinstufung in der 'Mitte' des politischen Links-Rechts-Kontinuums sowie eine distanzierte Haltung gegenüber der Gewerkschaft. Obwohl die größten SkeptikerInnen gegenüber AusländerInnen und JüdInnen nach wie vor die FPÖ wählen, so haben die FPÖ-ÖVP-Abwanderer dennoch eine ablehnendere Haltung gegenüber diesen beiden Gruppen als die übrigen ÖVP-WählerInnen. Ein wichtiges Ergebnis der Analyse ist, dass die Links-Rechts-Selbsteinstufung sowie die Nähe zu verschiedenen Weltanschauungen in den letzten Jahren teilweise starken Veränderungen unterlegen sind. Der Regierungswechsel und andere politische Entwicklungen scheinen in diesem Zusammenhang zu einer Bedeutungsverschiebung zentraler politischer Begriffe geführt zu haben.' (Autorenreferat)
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.
"In den vergangenen Jahren wurden, beispielsweise in der Synergetik, wichtige mathematische Einsichten über Systeme gewonnen, die aus sehr vielen nichtlinear wecheselwirkenden Systemen bestehen. Diese haben unter anderem zu Fortschritten in der mathematischen Soziologie und den Sozialwissenschaften geführt. Der vorliegende Artikel referiert neuere Ergebnisse des aus der Theorie interagierender Populationen hervorgegangenen Gebiets der 'quantitativen Soziodynamik'. Dabei wird zum Zwecke der Allgemeinverständlichkeit auf mathematische Formulierungen vollständig verzichtet, obwohl diese eigentlich das Kernstück der quantitativen Soziodynamik darstellen. Der mathematisch interessierte Leser findet sie in den zitierten Quellen. Statt dessen konzentriert sich der Artikel auf die Darstellung der Schlüsselbegriffe und Zusammenhänge der in der quantitativen Soziodynamik verwendeten Konzepte. Besondere Bedeutung kommt dabei der Selbstorganisation (Emergenz) kollektiver Verhaltensmuster und sozialer Strukturen zu. In diesem Zusammenhang werden auch die Beziehungen zur allgemeinen Systemtheorie aufgezeigt. Die quantitative Soziodynamik kann insofern als eine Art 'Metatheorie' verstanden werden, als sie eine allgemeine Modellierungsstrategie zur Verfügung stellt und eine Reihe etablierter Modelle aus den Sozialwissenschaften als Spezialfälle enthält. Dazu zählen die logische Gleichung, das Gravity-Modell, einige Diffusionsmodelle, die evolutionäre Spieltheorie, die soziale Feldtheorie und entscheidungstheoretische Konzepte. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten reichen vom Meinungsbildungs-, Migrations-, Fußgänger-, Siedlungs- und Wahl-Verhalten bis zur Gruppendynamik und Modellen der evolutionären und Nichtgleichgewichts-Ökonomik." (Autorenreferat)
Politicians & journalists usually regard state parliament elections as test elections for the incumbent federal government. In research, it is a common assumption that federal politics have a clear influence on state elections. This is particularly relevant when the election of the state parliament is held in the middle of the election period of the federal government. Such results are based on aggregate data that do not allow any statements about the motives of individual voters. Research based on individual data arrives at a more sophisticated result. In the direct perception of citizens, federal politics play an important role for their voting decision, but are less important than state politics. Indirect measurements of the relevance of federal politics confirm the influence of the satisfaction with the federal government on voting in favor of the CDU/CSU or the SPD at state elections is rather small. The approval of the federal government can influence individual voting decisions only in exceptional situations to a degree that is similar to the effects of the factors satisfaction with the state government & the preferred prime minister candidate. Tables. Adapted from the source document.
