PropertyValue
?:abstract
  • Voters are certainly not all alike in terms of their decision-making strategies: some might be rather policy-oriented, others may but put a special emphasis on candidates. Unfortunately, the question as how to identify heterogeneous sub-groups of the electorate – and which – remains largely unsettled. Thus, in conventional modeling of the Michigan Model scholars still implicitly assume that all voters place the same weights on various considerations by failing to allow for (unobserved) heterogeneity at the voter-level. A first necessary step towards a better understanding of how voters differ in terms of their voting calculi must be to develop some measurement of these variations. The goal of this paper therefore is to assess the potential of the two most-promising approaches that have been discussed in literature. Firstly, by applying random coefficient models as proposed by Rivers (1988), individual-level differences in decision-making can be accounted for since the random part of the utility functions of observable variables may vary between voters. Secondly, some scholars have used introspective self-reports about the most important reasons for the vote to build supposedly heterogeneous sub-groups of the electorate such as self-appointed policy-, candidate, and party-voters. Following this approach, the standard Michigan Model is then added by theoretically plausible interactions between group membership and corresponding vote predictors. Both approaches are applied to the 2009 Bundestag Election with data of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) in order to compare their merits and limitations. While being rather explorative in character, both strategies offer valuable potentials to better understand how voters differ. Furthermore, once a measurement of voter heterogeneity is established, we can analyze to what extent these differences in decision-making strategies are stable over time and how they can theoretically be explained, e.g. by differences in political sophistication. (xsd:string)
?:author
?:comment
  • (GLES) (xsd:string)
?:dataSource
  • GLES-Bibliography (xsd:string)
?:dateCreated
  • 1. Fassung, April 2012 (xsd:gyear)
?:dateModified
  • 2011 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2011 (xsd:gyear)
?:duplicate
is ?:hasPart of
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Measuring Voter Heterogeneity to improve the Michigan Model of Voting Behaviour (xsd:string)
?:publicationType
  • inproceedings (xsd:string)
?:reference
?:sourceCollection
  • 6. General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) (xsd:string)
?:sourceInfo
  • Bibsonomy (xsd:string)
  • In 6. General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), 2011 (xsd:string)
?:startDate
  • 25.08.-27.08.2011 (xsd:gyear)
?:studyGroup
  • German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) (xsd:string)
?:tags
  • 2011 (xsd:string)
  • FDZ_Wahlen (xsd:string)
  • GLES (xsd:string)
  • GLES_input2011 (xsd:string)
  • GLES_pro (xsd:string)
  • GLES_version1 (xsd:string)
  • ZA5302 (xsd:string)
  • checked (xsd:string)
  • inproceedings (xsd:string)
rdf:type