Adobe Systems Obrázok, na ktorom je text, snímka obrazovky, kruh, diagram Automaticky generovaný popis Adobe Systems Who is undecided, and who abstains? Determinants of turnout Part II Jakub Jusko Adobe Systems 3 Undecided voters Adobe Systems 4 Undecideds (late-deciders, floating voters) •Increase in the proportion of voters who postpone their voting decision into the latter stages of a campaign (western democracies, last decades) • Þ The role of the campaign Þ The need for identification of a target group Þ Possibility of surprise outcomes Þ Þ -In foreign research, the share of voters who made last-minute decisions ranged from 10 to 25 %, depending on the type and location of the election (cf. Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous 1994; Hayes and McAllister 1996; Brox and Giammo 2009) -Slovakia 15% the day of elections (2016) Adobe Systems 5 Factors •Sociodemographic (age, gender) •Partisanship •Cross-pressures (ambivalence) •Political sophistication •Strategic considerations •(Political disaffection) •Contextual factors Adobe Systems 6 The Benefits of Age — Tom Morris Sociodemographic Possible consequence of the political socialization process Adobe Systems 7 Sociodemographic Adobe Systems 8 Breaking Through Partisanship: Left-Right-Local (Episode 14) - Institute for Local Self-Reliance Partisanship Adobe Systems 9 Cross-pressures •A conflict (inconsistencies) between opposite pressures in the voter’s environment => US context ÞSocioeconomic status (work, family, religion) + issue attitudes vs. valence Þ •Internal ambivalence -> ‘individual’s endorsement of competing considerations relevant to evaluating an attitude object’ (Lavine, 2001). •External ambivalence -> either “cross-cutting social network” or “network ambivalence” Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) Campbell et al. (1960) Adobe Systems 10 Cross-pressures Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) Campbell et al. (1960) Adobe Systems 11 Cross-pressures Me Vs. Them - Album by Yksteexy | Spotify Person Icon Images | Free Photos, PNG Stickers, Wallpapers & Backgrounds - rawpixel Person Icon png images | PNGEgg Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) Campbell et al. (1960) Adobe Systems 12 Cross-pressures •A conflict (inconsistencies) between opposite pressures in the voter’s environment => US context ÞSocioeconomic status (work, family, religion) + issue attitudes vs. valence Þ •Internal ambivalence -> ‘individual’s endorsement of competing considerations relevant to evaluating an attitude object’ (Lavine, 2001). •External ambivalence -> either “cross-cutting social network” or “network ambivalence” • Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) Campbell et al. (1960) Adobe Systems 13 Political sophistication Yarchi et al. (2021): Israel •Politically sophisticated undecideds vs. •Less politically sophisticated undecideds • •Difference: Þ more privileged social background (education, income) Þ greater trust in traditional media Þ consumes more news to follow the campaign Þ more likely to carry out online discussions Þ more likely to base his or her decision on policy issues Þ more likely to debate between parties within the same ideological camp (internal floater) Þ more likely to vote Proportion around 4.5 vs. 16 % Optimistic view – Dalton (1984) -> cognitive mobilisation: abilities + mass media Pessimistic view – Lazarsfeld et al. (1968) Adobe Systems 14 Strategic considerations Trump and Harris Neck and Neck After Summer Upheaval, Times/Siena Poll Finds - The New York Times Adobe Systems 15 Political disaffection Obrázok, na ktorom je text, plagát, snímka obrazovky, noviny Automaticky generovaný popis Adobe Systems 16 Examples •Sociodemographic (age, gender): Germany 2017 •Partisanship: United Kingdom 2019 (Conservatives) •Cross-pressures (ambivalence): Brazil 2018 (Jair Bolsonaro) •Political sophistication: India 2019 •Strategic considerations: Canada 2019 (Liberal Party) •(Political disaffection): Spain 2015 (Podemos) • *party or candidate mentioned benefited from undecidedness Adobe Systems 17 Contextual factors •Long-standing stability? •Type of office at stake, the number of candidates/parties •Importance (first-order vs. second-order?) •Competitiveness of the contest? •Implicit attitudes? • • Obrázok, na ktorom je text, snímka obrazovky, písmo, potvrdenie Automaticky generovaný popis Adobe Systems 18 Also… -Less predictable in the last moments (Box-Steffensmeier et al. 2015) -Less likely to detect disinformation (Samuel-Azran 2022) -Less likely to consume media - Intense campaigning matters (Henderson and Hillygus, 2016) - Division into three groups… • Adobe Systems 19 Abstainers Adobe Systems 20 Source: YouGov Obrázok, na ktorom je text, snímka obrazovky, písmo, číslo Automaticky generovaný popis Adobe Systems 21 Abstainers Obrázok, na ktorom je text, potvrdenie, číslo, snímka obrazovky Automaticky generovaný popis Adobe Systems 22 Relevance of abstention •Two assumptions about abstainers: 1)Abstention affects all alternatives in equal measure 2)The voter’s preferred alternative will be less likely to win if that voter abstains 3) Peripheral + core voters No-Show Paradox (Fishburn and Brams, 1983) Adobe Systems 23 Short-term reasons vs. global decline •Two arguments for why recent generations are less prone to vote: 1)Context school - the result of certain characteristics of elections that particularly affect new voters (less competition, lowering the voting age…) -> P+habit 2) 2)Generation school – larger cultural value change in generations (less interest, priorities, voting not perceived as a duty) • • Blais and Rubenson (2013) – support for generation school -> young generation less inclined to vote because they are less prone to construct voting as a moral duty and are more sceptical about politicians’ responsiveness to their concerns “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does” “I don’t think public officials care much what people like me think.” • Adobe Systems 24 Abstainers vs. other groups 1) Abstainers vs. party switchers Þcommon: political dissatisfaction (general OR with a party they voted for) 2) Abstainers vs. populist voters (Germany – Koch et al. 2023) Þcommon: (dis)satisfaction with democracy + rejection of mainstream politics Þdifferent: expectations about democracy (as best system + tool), political trust, quality of political information • 3) Abstainers vs. right-wing voters Þdifferent: lower in measures of social integration (union membership, self-reported social activity and interpersonal trust) • Adobe Systems 25 Satisfaction with the decision Adobe Systems 26 Conclusion Key Points: -Importance of understanding the behaviour of undecided voters and abstainers in shaping election outcomes. - -Undecided voters are influenced by multiple factors, from sociodemographic elements to implicit biases. -The need for distinguishing between more and less-sophisticated undecideds - - Abstention weakens the democratic process, but there are solutions to address it. Adobe Systems 27 Next… Funny Weather Reports, Commercials, and Bloopers Adobe Systems 28 Literatute •Allen, T. J. (2017). Exit to the right? Comparing far right voters and abstainers in Western Europe. Electoral Studies, 50, 103-115. •Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Galdi, S., Zogmaister, C., & Amadori, A. (2008). Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of decided and undecided voters. Political Psychology, 29(3), 369-387. •Blais, A., Feitosa, F., & Sevi, S. (2019). Was my decision to vote (or abstain) the right one?. Party Politics, 25(3), 382-389. •Blais, A., & Rubenson, D. (2013). The source of turnout decline: New values or new contexts?. Comparative Political Studies, 46(1), 95-117. •Box-Steffensmeier, J., Dillard, M., Kimball, D., & Massengill, W. (2015). The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters. Electoral Studies, 39, 181-194. •Brox, B., & Giammo, J. (2009). Late deciders in US presidential elections. American Review of Politics, 30, 333-355. •Dassonneville, R., Blais, A., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2015). Staying with the party, switching or exiting? A comparative analysis of determinants of party switching and abstaining. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3), 387-405. •https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2021/rnv&document=index&lang=e •Gopoian, J. D., & Hadjiharalambous, S. (1994). Late-deciding voters in presidential elections. Political Behavior, 16, 55-78. •Henderson, M., & Hillygus, D. S. (2016). Changing the clock: the role of campaigns in the timing of vote decision. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3), 761-770. •Koch, C. M., Meléndez, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2023). Mainstream voters, non-voters and populist voters: what sets them apart?. Political Studies, 71(3), 893-913. •Pammett, J. H., & LeDuc, L. (2003). Explaining the turnout decline in Canadian federal elections: A new survey of non-voters (p. 21). Ottawa: Elections Canada. •Samuel-Azran, T., Yarchi, M., & Hayat, T. (2022). Less critical and less informed: Undecided voters’ media (dis) engagement during Israel’s April 2019 elections. Information, Communication & Society, 25(12), 1752-1768. •Schill, D., & Kirk, R. (2017). Angry, passionate, and divided: Undecided voters and the 2016 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(9), 1056-1076. •Stockemer, D., & Blais, A. (2019). Voters and abstainers in national and European elections. European Review, 27(2), 300-315. •Van Kessel, S., Sajuria, J., & Van Hauwaert, S. M. (2020). Informed, uninformed or misinformed? A cross-national analysis of populist party supporters across European democracies. West European Politics, 44(3), 585-610. •Willocq, S. (2019). Explaining time of vote decision: The socio-structural, attitudinal, and contextual determinants of late deciding. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 53-64. •Yarchi, M., Wolfsfeld, G., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2021). Not all undecided voters are alike: Evidence from an Israeli election. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101598.