Social Networks, Predispositions and Split-Ticket Voting: The Case of the 1990 German Unification Election

Abstract

When casting a split-ticket ballot, voters in established democracies have strong political predispositions and electoral experience that influence their decision. However, voters in a new democracy, lacking long-term party attachment and experience with democracy, may instead be informed and motivated by their social networks. Using the 1990 Cross-National Election Project German Unification study, I examine which factors predict split-ticket voting for East and West Germans. I find that political disagreement within a social network is more influential for East Germans, while partisan predispositions, particularly party supporter type, play a greater role for West Germans. These findings indicate that, in absence of competition between long-term partisanship and democratic experience, network characteristics may have a profound impact on political decision-making.

Does party ambivalence decrease voter turnout? A global analysis

“…3 The formula can be applied to different types of measures. It has been applied to information on (1) the number of positive and negative evaluations of parties (Bassinger and Lavine, 2005; Lavine, 2001; Lavine et al, 2012; Yoo, 2010), on (2) data from Likert scale responses of two parties (Rudolph, 2011) or on (3) feeling thermometer scores of two different parties (Johnson, 2014; Leiter, 2019; Mutz, 2002). I follow the latter approach and make use of citizens’ evaluations of parties to capture ambivalence.…”

“…For the remainder of the text, I refer to this second operationalization of ambivalence as multiparty ambivalence. For previous applications of the formula, see Leiter (2019) and Schmitt-Beck and Partheymüller (2012). 7…”

“…The ambivalence score varies from �10 to 10, where lower scores indicate having a single strong preference over other parties and 10 indicates being completely ambivalent towards all available parties. Negative values can be thought of lack of ambivalence and positive values can be considered as presence of ambivalence (Leiter, 2019). For comparability and continuity with the original formula (Thompson et al, 1995), I rescale the variable to run from �5 to 10, which means that the scores falling below 2.5 predominantly indicate lack of ambivalence whereas those above 2.5 predominantly indicate the respondent is ambivalent.…”