Finding the One: Ease of Candidate Choices in High Information Open‐List PR Systems

Abstract

Vote choice in an open-list proportional representation (OLPR) electoral system can be considered a complex process. In systems where votes are cast for individual candidates the choice is complicated by the large number of candidates, the two layers of competition involving both individual candidates and parties, and the amount of information required to make an informed choice. Hence, voters are expected to apply strategies to narrow down the pool of candidates from which the actual choice is made, that is, to create a delimited consideration set using cognitive heuristics. The types of strategies that facilitate voters' candidate choice are studied. More specifically, the voters' perceptions of the ease with which they choose their candidate and how this is related to three decision-making patterns are studied: the party-centric, in which the voter looks for party-related and ideological cues; the socio-normative, in which the voter considers their social in-group; and the candidate-related, in which the voter puts emphasis on specific features of the candidates, such as political experience, age and gender. Our study is situated in the Finnish OLPR system, characterized by many candidates, intense intraparty competition and mandatory preferential voting. Using data from the 2019 Finnish National Election Study and ordinal probit selection models, the mechanisms that facilitate the ease of candidate choice are outlined. Our findings suggest that voters feeling close to a political party and knowing the candidate personally or through friends or family perceive their candidate choice as easier.

A multi-stage and multi-actor perspective on intra-party competition: Introduction to the symposium

“…These shortcuts will reduce the time and effort to decide which individual politician to support. Examples of such shortcuts include candidates’ political experience, party affiliation, personality traits, appearance, visibility and local roots (Berggren et al, 2010; Clifford, 2014; Järvi et al, 2021; Coffé and Von Schoultz, 2021; Collignon and Sajuria, 2018; Lenz and Lawson, 2011; Shugart et al, 2005).…”

When does ideology matter? Party lists, personal attributes and the effect of ideology on intra‐party success

“…Theoretically, a large number of candidates should lead to candidate dispersion (Ames, 1995; Cox, 1997; Persson & Tabellini, 2005), and more voters being able to identify their most proximate candidate (Powell, 2000; Taagepera & Shugart, 1989). Additionally, as the number of candidates increases, so does the likelihood of voters knowing some of the candidates personally (Järvi et al., 2021). However, the amount and complexity of information that an average voter should consider will increase the cognitive costs of information processing.…”