Abstract
In this article, we investigate voter volatility and analyse the causes and motives of switching vote intentions. We test two main sets of variables linked to volatility in literature; political sophistication and political disaffection. Results show that voters with low levels of political efficacy tend to switch more often, both within a campaign and between elections. In the analysis, we differentiate between campaign volatility and inter-election volatility, and by doing so show that the dynamics of a campaign have a profound impact on volatility. The campaign period is when the lowly sophisticated switch their vote intention. Those with higher levels of interest in politics have switched their intention before the campaign has started. The data for this analysis are from the three wave PartiRep Belgian Election Study (2009).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An important difference between the 2007 and the 2009 elections is the cartels that took part in the election. In 2007, both CD&V/N-VA and SP.A/Spirit were on the election ballots as cartels. At the time of the 2009 election, both cartels had split up. CD&V, N-VA, SP.A and SLP (the heir of Spirit) all formed a separate list. As a consequence, whenever a respondent indicated to have voted for a cartel in the 2007 federal election and for one of its now independent parts in the 2009 election, this was coded as stable voting behaviour. This might mean that we somewhat underestimate inter-election volatility, it is, for example, quite plausible that some Christian-democrat voters shifted to the Flemish nationalists in 2009. For 2007, however, we have no other data than voting behaviour for the cartels, we have no way of registering which party a respondent would have voted for if the cartel consisted of two separate lists.
The reported voting behaviour in each wave might be a certain party, but might as well be an indication to cast a blank or invalid vote or an indication not to turn out to vote. Non-voters are also included in the analysis, non-voting is seen as a voting preference, just as party preferences are. Whenever a voter switches from a party preference to ‘non-voting’ or vice versa, the voter is coded as a volatile voter. A voter that indicates not to vote throughout the waves in the survey is coded as a stable voter.
As a lot of variables introduced in the analysis could be expected to be related to each other, we checked for multicollinearity. Tolerance statistics, however, were never below 0.5 whereas the highest VIF estimate was 1.9. These estimates do not point to a collinearity problem.
Between 2007 and 2009, 32.4 of the Dutch speaking and 32.9 per cent of the francophone voters was volatile. While 40.5 per cent of the Flemish voters was volatile during the campaign, 32.8 per cent of the French-speaking voters was.
References
Albright, J.J. (2009) Does political knowledge Erode party attachments? A review of the cognitive mobilisation thesis. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 248–260.
Alwin, D.F. and Krosnick, J.A. (1991) Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span. American Journal of Sociology 97 (1): 169–195.
Baudewyns, P., Frognier, A. and Swyngedouw, M. (2009) Elections régionales en Wallonie: les transferts de voix entre les partis entre 2007 et 2009. Louvain-la-neuve: België: UCL. PIOP 2009-2, http://www.piop.be.
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F. and McPhee, W.N. (1963) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press.
Blais, A. (2004) How many voters change their minds in the month preceding an election? PS Political Science and Politics 37 (4): 801–803.
Botterman, S. and Hooghe, M. (forthcoming) Religion and voting behaviour in Belgium. An analysis of the relation between religious beliefs and Christian Democratic Voting. Acta Politica, in press.
Campbell, A., Philip, C., Miller, W. and Stokes, D. (1960) The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Crow, D. (2005) Crossing party lines: Volatility and ticket splitting in Mexico (1994–2000). Bulletin of Latin American Research 24 (1): 1–22.
Dalton, R.J. (1984) Cognitive mobilisation and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies. Journal of Politics 46 (2): 264–284.
Dalton, R.J. (2006) Citizen Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Dalton, R.J. (2007) Partisan mobilisation, cognitive mobilisation and the changing American Electorate. Electoral Studies 26 (2): 274–286.
Dalton, R.J. and Wattenberg, M.P. (eds.) (2002) Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J. and Weldon, S.A. (2005) Public images of political parties: A necessary evil? West European Politics 28 (5): 931–951.
Delli Carpini, M.S. and Keeter, S. (1996) What Americans know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deschouwer, K. (2009) The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Winter, L., Swyngedouw, M. and Dumont, P. (2006) Party System(s) and electoral behaviour in Belgium: From stability to Balkanisation. West European Politics 29 (5): 933–956.
Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage.
Fiorina, M. (2002) Parties and partisanship: A 40-year retrospective. Political Behavior 24 (2): 93–115.
Granberg, D. and Holmberg, S. (1988) The Political System Matters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Granberg, D. and Holmberg, S. (1990) The Berelson paradox reconsidered. Intention-behavior changers in U.S. and Swedish Election Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (4): 530–550.
Hayes, B.C. and McAllister, I. (1996) Marketing politics to voters: Late deciders in the 1992 British Election. European Journal of Marketing 30 (10/11): 127–139.
Hayes, B.C. and McAllister, I. (2001) Women, electoral volatility and political outcomes in Britain. European Journal of Marketing 35 (9/10): 971–983.
Hooghe, M. and Walgrave, S. (2010) Opkomstplicht en politieke kennis: de onwetende burger aan het woord? In: K. Deschouwer, P. Delwit, M. Hooghe and S. Walgrave (eds.) De stemmen van het volk. Een analyse van het kiesgedrag in Vlaanderen en Wallonië op 7 juni 2009. Brussel: VUB Press, pp. 143–167.
Key, V.O. (1966) The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Knutsen, O. (2004) Religious denomination and party choice in Western Europe: A comparative longitudinal study from eight countries, 1970–97. International Political Science Review 25 (1): 97–128.
Krosnick, J. (1990) Expertise and political psychology. Social Cognition 8 (1): 1–8.
Kuhn, U. (2009) Stability and change in party preference. Swiss Political Science Review 15 (3): 463–494.
Lachat, R. (2007) A Heterogeneous Electorate. Political Sophistication, Predisposition Strength and the Voting Decision Process. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B.R. and Gaudet, H. (1965) The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lisi, M. (2010) The consequences of cognitive mobilisation in comparative perspective: Political sophistication and voting behavior in old and new democracies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2–5 September, Washington, United States.
Luskin, R.C. (1990) Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior 12 (4): 331–361.
Mair, P. (2002) In the aggregate: Mass electoral behaviour in Western Europe, 1950–2000. In: H. Keman (ed.) Comparative Democratic Politics. London: Sage, pp. 122–140.
Marthaler, S. (2008) The paradox of the politically-sophisticated partisan: The French case. West European Politics 31 (5): 937–959.
McAllister, I. (2002) Calculating or capricious? The new politics of late deciding voters. In: D.M. Farrell and R. Schmitt-Beck (eds.) Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 22–40.
PartiRep. (2009) Belgian election study 2009. Data file. Brussels/Leuven/Antwerp: PartiRep, http://www.partirep.eu.
Pedersen, M. (1979) The dynamics of European party systems: Changing patterns of electoral volatility. European Journal of Political Science Research 7 (1): 1–26.
Quintelier, E., Hooghe, M. and Marien, S. (forthcoming) The effect of compulsory voting on turnout stratification patterns. A cross-national analysis. International Political Science Review, In press.
Rihoux, B., De Winter, L., Dumont, P. and Deruette, S. (2007) Belgium. European Journal of Political Research 46 (7/8): 891–900.
Sears, D.O. (1981) Life-stage effects on attitude change, especially among the elderly. In: S.B. Kiesler, J.N. Morgan and V.K. Oppenheimer (eds.) Aging: Social Change. New York: Academic Press, pp. 183–204.
Söderlund, P. (2008) Retrospective voting and electoral volatility: A nordic perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies 31 (2): 217–240.
Thomassen, J. and Rosema, M. (2009) Party identification revisited. In: J. Bartle and P. Belluci (eds.) Political Parties and Partisanship. Social Identity and Individual Attitudes. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 42–95.
Torcal, M. and Montero, J.R. (2006) Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies. London: Routledge.
Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J. and Hooghe, M. (2010) Volatiel of wispelturig? Hoeveel en welke kiezers veranderden van stemvoorkeur tijdens de campagne? In: K. Deschouwer, P. Delwit, M. Hooghe and S. Walgrave (eds.) De stemmen van het volk. Een analyse van het kiesgedrag in Vlaanderen en Wallonië op 7 juni 2009. Brussel, Belgium: VUB Press, pp. 29–50.
Zaller, J. (2000) Floating voters in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2000. In: W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman (eds.) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 166–214.
Zelle, C. (1995) Social dealignment versus political frustration: Contrasting explanations of the floating vote in Germany. European Journal of Political Research 27 (3): 319–345.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the generous support provided by the Belgian Federal Science Agency to the ‘Partirep’ (Participation and Representation) project, as part of the Inter-University Attraction Pole programme (www.partirep.eu). I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Acta Politica for their critical but very useful comments and insights.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Language: Language of the survey, either Dutch (0) or French (1).
Gender: Male (0) or female (1).
Age: In years, calculated by distracting the reported year of birth from 2009 (the year the survey was held in).
Education: No degree or elementary school degree (1), unfinished high school degree (2), finished high school degree (3) and higher education or university degree (4).
Religious practice: Self-reported scale of religious practice, with values from 1 (never) to 7 (at least once a week).
Social class: Four categories, being non-active (1=retired, unemployed, student or housewife/-men), labour (2), middle class (3=farmer, entrepreneur with less than six employees and civil servants), higher class (4=entrepreneur with more than six employees, profession, board of directors and staff member).
Ideological profile (left–right): Self-reported position on scale from 0 (left) to 10 (right).
Ideological extremeness: Distance from the ideological centre (5) on the left–right scale. Ranging from 0 (when 5 was reported) to 5 (when 0 or 10 was reported).
Political knowledge: Score on five knowledge questions in the survey, thus ranging from 0 (no knowledge) to 5 (high knowledge). The five questions in the Partirep survey are sufficient for a solid measurement and analysis of political knowledge (Hooghe and Walgrave, 2010).
Interest in politics: Self-reported score for interest in politics, ranging from 0 (no interest at all) to 10 (very much interested).
Political participation: Variable composed by means of the scores on 10 participation items (excluding membership in political parties), with scores ranging from 1 (never), 2 (seldom) and 3 (sometimes) to 4 (often). The items questioned were the following: How much have you done the following things during the past 12 months? ‘boycotting certain products’, ‘participating in manifestations’, ‘partaking in illegal protest actions’, ‘sending a letter to a politician’, ‘sending an e-mail to a politician’, ‘signing a petition’, ‘being in the media’, ‘being active in a volunteer organisation’, ‘debating on political issues on internet forums or online discussion groups’, ‘supporting a charity organisation’. As the distribution on these participation items was very unequal, the item scores were converted into dummies. The sum of those dummies then resulted in our participation variable, ranging from 0 to 10. (Cronbach's α 0.62; Eigenvalue 2.45; 24.5 per cent explained variance.)
Exposure to the media: Scores of self-reported exposure to three different media channels (newspaper, news bulletin and radio) during the past 2 weeks. Questions were part of the first wave of the survey. Scores ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (systematically, each week day).
Talking about politics: Sum scale of self-reported scores for talking about politics during the previous month to friends, colleagues and family members. Scores ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Converted into a 0–10 scale. (Cronbach's α 0.76; Eigenvalue 2.27; 67.55 per cent explained variance.)
Internal political efficacy: Composed out of the scores on four items in the survey, ‘I consider myself capable of participating in politics’, ‘I think I would do as good a job as most politicians we elect’, ‘I think I’m better informed about politics and government than most people’, ‘I think I have a rather good understanding of important problems society is dealing with’. Respondents gave a score from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (fully agree) on each question, the sum of the scores on each question was computed and put on a 0 to 10 scale. (Cronbach's α 0.69; Eigenvalue 2.07; 51.72 per cent explained variance.)
Political trust: Average score of self-reported trust in six political institutions (political parties, the regional government, the regional parliament, the federal government, the federal parliament and politicians). The scores were ranging from 0 (no trust at all) to 10 (complete trust). (Cronbach's α 0.81; Eigenvalue 3.11; 54.76 per cent explained variance.)
External political efficacy: Composed by means of the scores on three questions in the survey, ‘An average citizen does have an impact on politics and what the government is doing’, ‘Voting makes no sense, parties do whatever they want anyway’ and ‘In election times, one party promises more than the other, but eventually, nothing happens anyway’. The scores were ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and were converted so that all high scores meant high efficacy and low scores meant low efficacy. The sum score was put on a 0 to 10 scale. (Cronbach's α 0.59; Eigenvalue 1.65; 54.93 per cent explained variance.)
Appendix C
Appendix D
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dassonneville, R. Electoral volatility, political sophistication, trust and efficacy: A study on changes in voter preferences during the Belgian regional elections of 2009. Acta Polit 47, 18–41 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.19
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.19