9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Please follow the link for Author's Instructions or submit your manuscript here.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Split-Ticket Voting in Belgium : An Analysis of the Presence and Determinants of Differentiated Voting in the Municipal and Provincial Elections of 2018

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Split-Ticket Voting in Belgium

          This article tackles the particular issue of split-ticket voting, which has been largely overlooked in Belgian election studies thus far. We contribute to the literature by answering two particular research questions: (1) to what extent and (2) why do voters cast a different vote in the elections for the provincial council as compared to their vote in the elections for the municipal council?The article draws on survey data collected via an exit poll in the ‘Belgian Local Elections Study’, a research project conducted by an inter-university team of scholars.Our analysis shows that nearly 45% of the total research population cast a split-ticket vote in the local elections of 2018. However, this number drops to one out of four if we only consider a homogenous party landscape at both levels by excluding the numerous votes for ‘local’ lists (which occur mostly at the municipal level). This finding underlines the importance of accounting for the electoral and institutional context of the different electoral arenas in research on split-ticket voting in PR systems. In the Belgian context, split-ticket voting in 2018 also differed between the different parties and regions. Furthermore, it was encouraged by a higher level of education and familiarity with particular candidates. This candidate-centred and strategic voting was matched by party identification and the urban municipal context favouring straight-ticket voting. Other factors such as region, a rural municipal context and preferential voting seemed more relevant to determine voting for local parties than using the instrument of split-ticket votes as such.

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting

              The primary source of divided government in the United States is voters who split their ballots between the parties. Yet there has been little comprehensive examination of either patterns or sources of ticket splitting in recent years. Instead, divergent lines of research have emerged, emphasizing such things as voter partisanship, incumbency, and a “new” (young, well-educated, even partisan) kind of ticket splitter; and their focus has been too often restricted to the atypical president–Congress pair. We seek to unify these research traditions in a comprehensive model of split-ticket voting and to test this model across the partisan ballot in a typical election setting-here, the contests for five Ohio state-wide offices in 1990. The model incorporates partisan strength, candidate visibility, and the individual characteristics that distinguish the “new ticket splitters”. The results support our partisan strength and candidate visibility explanations but provide little support for the emergence of a new type of ticket splitter.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Tony Valcke is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of Ghent University (Belgium). He is a member of the Centre for Local Politics (CLP) and coordinator of the Teacher Training Department. His research, publications and educational activities focus on elections and democratic participation/innovation, (the history of) political institutions and (local) government reform, political elites and leadership, citizenship (education).
                Role: Tom Verhelst is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at Ghent University (Belgium) and a postdoctoral research fellow at the Department of Political Science at Maastricht University (the Netherlands). His research focuses on the Europeanisation of local government (with a particular interest for the regulatory mobilisation of local government in EU decision-making processes) and on the role and position of the local council in Belgium and the Netherlands (with a particular interest for local council scrutiny).
                Journal
                PLC
                Politics of the Low Countries
                Eleven International Publishing (The Hague )
                2589-9929
                November 2019
                : 1
                : 3 , Special issue: Local Politics in the Low Countries
                : 205-226 (pp. 205-226)
                Article
                PLC_2589-9929_2019_001_003_004
                10.5553/PLC/258999292019001003004
                105b9075-f1b4-47e0-868c-8eaca8c3eb64
                History
                Categories
                Article
                Artikel
                Article
                Artikel
                Article
                Artikel

                Political science
                split-ticket voting,PR-system,Belgium,voting motives,local elections
                Political science
                split-ticket voting, PR-system, Belgium, voting motives, local elections

                Comments

                Comment on this article