Suchergebnisse

Empirical applications of the spatial theory of elections typically rely on the discrete choice framework to arrive at probabilistic voting models. Whereas in the classic model voter choice is solely a function of spatial proximity, neo-Downsian models also incorporate voter-specific nonpolicy attributes, which are represented by sociodemographic characteristics. One prominent line of such probabilistic models, Schofield's Valence Model, additionally includes party valences into voter utility functions. The model rests on the estimated party intercepts to measure the valence advantages empirically. The party intercepts are ordered based on their values, and then this valence ranking is used further to predict equilibrium locations. The paper demonstrates that this measurement strategy does not provide unique results in fully specified models due to central properties of discrete choice models and the specific nature of party intercepts in these models. Drawing on a simple example based on mass election surveys from Germany, it is shown that the valence ranking, the crucial factor to investigate how valence differences affect the nature of spatial competition, is highly sensitive to arbitrary coding decisions. As a consequence, it is impossible to represent valence with the constants and to infer something substantial from the resulting valence ranking.

Abstract
Valence is a crucial concept in studying spatial voting and party competition. The widely adopted approach is to rely on intercepts of vote choice models and to infer, based on their size and direction, how valence affects party strategies in empirical settings. The approach suffers from fundamental statistical flaws. This contribution provides the statistical fundamentals to advance the empirical modeling of valence. It proposes an appropriate modeling approach to interpret intercepts as valences and alternate specifications to parameterize the effects of valence.

Different voters behave differently at the polls, different students make different university choices, or different countries choose different health care systems. Many research questions important to social scientists concern choice behavior, which involves dealing with nominal dependent variables. Drawing on the principle of maximum random utility, we propose applying a flexible and general heterogeneous multinomial logit model to study differences in choice behavior. The model systematically accounts for heterogeneity that classical models do not capture, indicates the strength of heterogeneity, and permits examining which explanatory variables cause heterogeneity. As the proposed approach allows incorporating theoretical expectations about heterogeneity into the analysis of nominal dependent variables, it can be applied to a wide range of research problems. Our empirical example uses individual-level survey data to demonstrate the benefits of the model in studying heterogeneity in electoral decisions.

"Orientieren sich Wähler an Positionsissues, d.h. an Sachfragen, bei denen Parteien unterschiedliche Standpunkte vertreten und welche sie in ihren Wahlkampagnen in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß und variierender Deutlichkeit hervorheben? Als Beitrag zur Analyse des Issue-Voting im Sinne räumlicher Modelle geht der vorliegende Beitrag der in der Forschung bislang vernachlässigten Frage nach, ob Issue-Effekte systematisch nach Parteien variieren. Vor dem Hintergrund neuerer Forschung werden Hypothesen zur Konditionalität des Auftretens parteienspezifischer Issue-Effekte vorgelegt und am Beispiel der Bundestagswahlen 2002, 2005 und 2009 mittels konditionaler Logitmodelle geprüft. Eine höhere Issue-Reaktionsbereitschaft der Wähler wird für Parteien, die bezüglich bestimmter Issues polare Positionen einnehmen, für Oppositionsparteien und für Kleinparteien erwartet. Den Analysen zufolge ist die Nullhypothese gleichartiger Issue-Effekte für alle Parteien klar abzuweisen. Zentrales Ergebnis ist, dass vor allem polare Issuepositionen das Issue-Voting im Sinne räumlicher Modelle begünstigen. " (Autorenreferat)

AbstractWhich issue-related motives underlie voters' decision to switch parties at the polls? Do switchers stick to the newly chosen party, or do they oscillate in a short-term way at intermediate elections? Relying on the behavioral theory of elections, we assumed aspiration-based voting of boundedly rational voters. We elicited issue-related switch and stay motives in an open-ended survey question format to identify the individual dominant aspirational frame. We traced the respondents' voting trajectories over three consecutive elections, including two state (2013 and 2018) elections in Bavaria (Germany) and one German federal election (2017). We focused on one of the most polarizing and salient issues in these elections, namely immigration. The case of reference is the 2018 Bavarian state election. Here, the incumbent majoritarian center-right party Christian Social Union tried to deter the entry of the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany by adapting to it on the immigration issue in tone and position. The selected case allows assessment of the impact of issue-based adaptive behavior of the incumbent party at the level of the voters' switch or stay choices. We estimated the direction and number of voter flows for two interelection sequences of different lengths between different types of polls (federal and state). Our transition estimates are based on the hybrid multinomial Dirichlet model, a new technique integrating individual-level survey data and official aggregate data. Our estimates uncover substantial behavioral differences in the immigration issue public.