How (often) do voters change their consideration sets?

Abstract

The consideration set model posits that in multi-party elections voters decide in two stages. We expect that in the consideration stage, when voters select viable options, ideological proximity is a key determinant, while in the choice stage election-specific factors become particularly important. This would imply that consideration sets are rather stable and that changes in voting preferences occur mainly within ideologically coherent consideration sets. This study examines both claims by analyzing panel survey data from Sweden and the Netherlands. Consideration sets were indeed rather stable, more so than voting intentions. After one year, voters still considered the same party in 81% of cases and only 13% of respondents shifted between ideological camps. This indicates that voters changed electoral preferences primarily within the boundaries of relatively stable consideration sets and ideological camps. These findings help to understand how elections can be volatile, despite the strong impact of highly stable ideological orientations.

Do (Microtargeted) Deepfakes Have Real Effects on Political Attitudes?

“…The explanation might lie in the multiparty system. There are two other, more orthodox Christian parties in the Netherlands, ChristenUnie (CU), and Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP), and many heavily religious people may consider CDA as too distant from “pure” Christian views anyway (also see the classification of the Christian consideration set by Rekker and Rosema 2019). Next to that, the less religious participants would be less susceptible to the deepfake, because their Christianity is less central in their lives.…”

“…Decreasing support for the citizen’s “own” candidate and increasing support for the opponent, as demonstrated by Endres (2019), are arguably impressive in a polarized two-party context such as the United States (Abramowitz 2013; Webster and Abramowitz 2017). In a multiparty context, citizens are more likely to switch to parties within their “consideration set” rather than to a party outside of the consideration set or rather than abstaining altogether (Rekker and Rosema 2019).…”

Competence Issue Ownership, Issue Positions and the Vote for the Greens and the Social Democrats

“…That is, voters pick the parties they wish to include in their consideration set based on some – possibly implicit – calculation of the distance between their own preferences and the perceived parties' positions on the left–right scale or on related dimensions of political conflict, such as the classic economic opposition between state intervention and free market (Karlsen & Aardal, 2016). Given that ideological proximity is a key determinant in the consideration stage, it is expected to play less of a role in the choice stage (Rekker & Rosema, 2019). In that stage, the final decision is likely to rest on additional criteria, such as issues, candidates or any other kind of election‐specific factors (Rekker & Rosema, 2019).…”

“…Given that ideological proximity is a key determinant in the consideration stage, it is expected to play less of a role in the choice stage (Rekker & Rosema, 2019). In that stage, the final decision is likely to rest on additional criteria, such as issues, candidates or any other kind of election‐specific factors (Rekker & Rosema, 2019).…”

'Them' Without 'Us': Negative Identities and Affective Polarisation in Brazil

“…Baldassari & Gelman 2008;Webster & Abramowitz 2017) and Western Europe (e.g. Rekker & Rosema 2019;Oscarsson & Rosema 2019). If politics is not fought along ideological lines, ideology should hold little explanatory power in Brazil.…”