Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveThis article examines the distinction between group‐based issue opinion formation (what we term "following the crowd") and idiosyncratic or nongroup‐based formation (what we term "thinking outside of the box"). The argument put forth is that issue saliency can lead citizens to think about issues in nongroup‐based terms.MethodWe use heteroskedastic regression to measure the degree to which group‐based variables explain issue opinions. Using group variables (demographics, party identification, etc.) to estimate respondents' issue responses means that nongroup variation is soaked up by the error term.ResultsWe find that citizens who view an issue as highly salient are more likely to "think outside the box," while citizens who view an issue as less salient are more likely to "follow the crowd" by defaulting to their group memberships and identifications.ConclusionOur results indicate that response variability (less consistency within groups) on issue opinions is not always the result of uncertain citizens, nonattitudes, or measurement error. In some situations, greater response variability can reflect a deliberative and policy‐based form of opinion formation.

This article examines brokerage activity and "vote buying" in the 2017 Pati district election, where the incumbent seeking re-election was the only candidate on the ballot. Although running unopposed, Indonesian election laws still require unopposed candidates to win the majority of votes cast in order to win. Despite facing a weak opposition that was under-funded and largely limited to the use of social media, the unopposed incumbent in Pati nonetheless built a large and expensive campaign organization and vigorously campaigned for votes. Some of the incumbent's supporters gave money directly to voters in the days before the election. Our study finds that a complex interaction between strategic political considerations and cultural factors explains the apparent paradox of why a popular and unopposed incumbent who was virtually assured victory would engage in an active campaign similar in size and scope to one found in a regular election involving multiple candidates. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

AbstractWhen citizens are offered cash and gifts by candidates, they can either vote for candidates offering the money, refuse the money, or take the money and vote for whichever candidate they prefer (e.g., "vote their conscience"). Which citizens "vote their conscience" versus the other options available to them? This manuscript examines the effect of poverty, education, and social pressure on how citizens in the Central Java city of Semarang, Indonesia react to offers of cash from politicians. We find that poverty and education interact to create important and interesting patterns of responses. The citizens most likely to "vote their conscience" are those with lower income yet higher levels of formal education whereas higher income, more highly educated citizens are most likely to refuse the money. We also examine factors that create social pressure for citizens to "sell" their votes by supporting the candidates offering cash.

AbstractThis article examines ambivalence—the simultaneous holding of two or more conflicting values or beliefs about a political issue—among Indonesian citizens' attitudes about vote buying. Using an original survey taken during the 2014 Indonesian elections, we analyse the factors related both to citizens' normative views about vote buying and their willingness to accept gifts from candidates. A large number of citizens demonstrate ambivalence by viewing the practice as unjustified or corrupt and yet expressing willingness to accept money from candidates. We also examine the differential effects of education and income on these attitudes. Consistent with "demand side" theories of vote buying, low income creates economic pressure to accept money but does not influence normative attitudes about vote buying. Education, however, has a broader effect by influencing both normative attitudes and willingness to accept money. We consider implications of these results for Indonesian officials focused on reducing vote-buying behavior.

This manuscript examines the role of intermediaries known as "brokers" in mobilizing voters, often by distributing cash and material goods, for campaigns in Indonesia. We build upon previous studies by examining the role of social networks in recruiting brokers into campaigns, the structure of brokerage networks, and the motivations of brokers to join a campaign. Whereas past studies tend to view the candidate-broker relationship in transactional terms, our study finds that the social network of candidates is also an important factor that helps explain how brokerage networks are structured and also the considerations that motivate brokers to work for a campaign. While material benefits and transactional considerations do motivate some brokers, we also find a wide variety of solidary benefits such as personal friendships and shared membership in social organizations as motivating factors for many other brokers. Our findings are based on in-depth interviews with approximately 150 individuals (candidates, brokers, citizens, etc.) during the 2017–2019 series of Indonesian elections which includes local village head elections, legislative elections, and the gubernatorial election. (Asian Aff/GIGA)

Purpose of the study: Generally, the purpose of this study is to explain the salience of each form of election for voters. To explain that, this study examines which election is perceived as the most important election for voters, and what matters are considered by voters in each election, especially in the most important election and money politics. Methodology: The data are drawn from a survey of 800 respondents in Central Java during the 2019 Indonesian elections. The survey asked two questions; which election they perceive as the most important election ("what is the most important election for you?"), and what matters they consider when voting for a candidate ("what is your consideration in each election?"). The dataset also includes variables related to money politics. Main Findings: Voters have different importances and considerations in various forms of elections. More voters see the executive election as the most important than the legislative election in every level of election. More voters consider the program in the legislative elections, while more voters consider the figure of candidates in the executive elections. But in more detail, there are various patterns. Applications of this study: Referring to the number of elections in Indonesia, this finding can help the government, electoral commission, or activists to develop better strategies for educating citizens. Also, referring to the widespread money politics in Indonesia, this finding can help them to improve participation and reduce money politics in elections, especially at local levels. Novelty/Originality of this study: Many scholars who talked about the meaning of election or the Importance of election do not explain clearly the possibility of voters having different meanings for different elections, while a voter faces several elections for different positions. This article fills in the literature explanation by discussing the level of elections when understanding the meaning of elections for voters.

While the focus of most research in women's politics has been on the number of legislative seats and explaining the under-representation of women and other marginalized groups, we argue that there also needs to be a greater focus on voters themselves and their attitudes about gender representation in Indonesia. We focus on three broad series of questions. First, gender differences in attitudes about women candidates precisely. Second, gender differences in policy priorities. Third, gender differences in attitudes about one specific aspect of Indonesian elections – money politics or what is sometimes referred to as "vote-buying." The data are drawn from a stratified probability sample of citizens in the Demak and Pati regencies in Central Java, Indonesia. A total of 800 respondents were in the sample, including 55 percent of the sample consisted of women. The finding has some interesting implications in how to understand gender differences in Indonesian politics. Men and women both respond with the correct "rhetoric" view about the importance of women candidates and descriptive representation. Still, both genders shift from the "rhetoric" view to the "logic" view about policies that have a more direct impact on their own lives.

While the focus of most research in women's politics has been on the number of legislative seats and explaining the under-representation of women and other marginalized groups, we argue that there also needs to be a greater focus on voters themselves and their attitudes about gender representation in Indonesia. We focus on three broad series of questions. First, gender differences in attitudes about women candidates precisely. Second, gender differences in policy priorities. Third, gender differences in attitudes about one specific aspect of Indonesian elections – money politics or what is sometimes referred to as "vote-buying." The data are drawn from a stratified probability sample of citizens in the Demak and Pati regencies in Central Java, Indonesia. A total of 800 respondents were in the sample, including 55 percent of the sample consisted of women. The finding has some interesting implications in how to understand gender differences in Indonesian politics. Men and women both respond with the correct "rhetoric" view about the importance of women candidates and descriptive representation. Still, both genders shift from the "rhetoric" view to the "logic" view about policies that have a more direct impact on their own lives.

While the focus of most research in women's politics has been on the number of legislative seats and explaining the under-representation of women and other marginalized groups, we argue that there also needs to be a greater focus on voters themselves and their attitudes about gender representation in Indonesia. We focus on three broad series of questions. First, gender differences in attitudes about women candidates precisely. Second, gender differences in policy priorities. Third, gender differences in attitudes about one specific aspect of Indonesian elections – money politics or what is sometimes referred to as "vote-buying." The data are drawn from a stratified probability sample of citizens in the Demak and Pati regencies in Central Java, Indonesia. A total of 800 respondents were in the sample, including 55 percent of the sample consisted of women. The finding has some interesting implications in how to understand gender differences in Indonesian politics. Men and women both respond with the correct "rhetoric" view about the importance of women candidates and descriptive representation. Still, both genders shift from the "rhetoric" view to the "logic" view about policies that have a more direct impact on their own lives.