It's Not Only About Lists: Explaining Preference Voting in Belgium

Abstract

This article analyses the decision of Belgian voters to cast a preference vote on the occasion of the 2009 regional elections. And what appears is that preference votes could be given three meanings. First, preference voting appears to be a sophisticated voting behaviour more accessible to politically interested and involved voters. Less politically active voters more often limit themselves to marking their ballot on the top of the list without differentiating their support among candidates. Second, preference voting is very much a token of voter -candidate proximity. Voters are more likely to support candidates when they know one or several specific candidates directly or via the media. Finally, preference voting is also very much dependent on the structure of institutional incentives. The more influence a preference vote has on the process of intra-party seat allocation, the more likely voters are to make the effort. All in all, this article shows the diversity of motivations behind preference voting, and more importantly the different meanings it could take in elections.

Saturation or maturation? The diffusion of Twitter and its impact on preference voting in the Dutch general elections of 2010 and 2012

“…Therefore, controlling for traditional explanations of preference voting is crucial. Two broad clusters of explanations can be identified in the literature: ballot position (André et al, 2012;Geys & Heyndels, 2003;Krebs, 1998;Lutz, 2010;McDermott, 1997;Wauters, Weekers, & Maddens, 2010) and media and campaign activities (Gibson & McAllister, 2012;Thijssen & Jacobs, 2004).…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis of the impact of Twitter that compares an election where usage of the platform was (fairly) limited (2010) with an election where a clear majority of the politicians used it (2012). For each of the candidates, we collected data on their number of preference votes, Twitter usage, and factors that have been identified to influence the number of votes a candidate gets: their position on the list, gender, ethnicity, incumbency, campaign activities, and media exposure (André, Wauters, & Pilet, 2012;Gibson & McAllister, 2012;Lutz, 2010;Thijssen & Jacobs, 2004). Our analyses show that in a context of widespread usage, Twitter still appears to yield preference votes, though this effect is relatively modest.…”

Voting and satisfaction with democracy in flexible-list PR

“…3 They can opt for a so-called party-list vote, marking only a preference for a party-list and letting the order of candidates on the ballot as set by political parties decides who is elected within the list (like in closed-list PR). Some studies show that the electorate is split between preference and party-list voters, as they are different on several covariates (André, Wauters, and Pilet 2012;Karvonen 2010;Renwick and Pilet 2016).…”

A Divided Nation? The 2014 Belgian Federal Elections

“…Voters have the option to cast either a list vote, endorsing the party-preferred ranking of candidates, or to cast one or more preference votes for individual candidates running under the same party label. Since 1919 the proportion of the electorate voting for individual candidates has increased dramatically, the rising long-term trend being partially offset in the most recent elections (see André et al 2012). Candidates polling preference votes that equal the Droop quota of the party vote (i.e.…”