Is unequal representation the consequence of different voting behavior across income groups?

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102790
Anna-Sophie Kurella , Nathalie Giger , Jan Rosset
{"title":"Is unequal representation the consequence of different voting behavior across income groups?","authors":"Anna-Sophie Kurella ,&nbsp;Nathalie Giger ,&nbsp;Jan Rosset","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Extant literature documents the unequal representation of the interests of low- and high-income groups in democracies. One potential explanation for this phenomenon is the electoral behavior of different groups of voters. If affluent citizens base their vote decisions more strongly on policy considerations, while the less affluent rely on forms of electoral support that are less strongly conditioned by policy or performance evaluations, this pattern could influence the ability and willingness of political elites to represent low-income citizens. We make use of the integrated CSES election data to study how, across a diverse set of countries, income levels affect the criteria voters rely on when voting: namely, proximity voting, valence considerations, and economic voting. Overall, our findings show no meaningful differences in voting criteria across income groups, nor consequences for party systems. These findings have important implications for the literature on unequal representation, as they rule out the common narrative that the affluent cast more sophisticated vote decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 102790"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000489/pdfft?md5=bbfce0ae074720bf99cedce0bdb3ec6f&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000489-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Extant literature documents the unequal representation of the interests of low- and high-income groups in democracies. One potential explanation for this phenomenon is the electoral behavior of different groups of voters. If affluent citizens base their vote decisions more strongly on policy considerations, while the less affluent rely on forms of electoral support that are less strongly conditioned by policy or performance evaluations, this pattern could influence the ability and willingness of political elites to represent low-income citizens. We make use of the integrated CSES election data to study how, across a diverse set of countries, income levels affect the criteria voters rely on when voting: namely, proximity voting, valence considerations, and economic voting. Overall, our findings show no meaningful differences in voting criteria across income groups, nor consequences for party systems. These findings have important implications for the literature on unequal representation, as they rule out the common narrative that the affluent cast more sophisticated vote decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
代表权不平等是不同收入群体投票行为不同的结果吗?
现有文献记载,在民主国家中,低收入群体和高收入群体的利益代表不平等。对这一现象的一个潜在解释是不同选民群体的选举行为。如果富裕公民的投票决定更多地基于政策考虑,而不太富裕的人则依赖于受政策或绩效评估影响较小的选举支持形式,那么这种模式可能会影响政治精英代表低收入公民的能力和意愿。我们利用综合 CSES 选举数据,研究了在不同国家中,收入水平如何影响选民投票时所依赖的标准,即就近投票、价值考虑和经济投票。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,不同收入群体的投票标准没有明显差异,对政党制度也没有影响。这些发现对有关不平等代表权的文献具有重要意义,因为它们排除了富裕阶层投票决定更复杂的普遍说法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1