How institutions do (not) contain personalized politics: centralized personalization in a decentralized electoral system

Figures & data

Figure 1. Time trend in preference votes of total votes (panel A) and party leader preference votes of total preference votes (panel B).

Note: based on electoral reports from Statistics Denmark.

Table 1. Party leader sympathy and polarization.

	Mean party voter sympathy	Mean non-party voter sympathy	Party leader polarization
Inger Støjberg (DD)	8.82	2.82	6.00
Morten Messerschmidt (DPP)	7.64	1.96	5.68
Pernille Vermund (NR)	7.60	2.17	5.43
Mai Villadsen (RGA)	8.01	2.77	5.24
Francisca Rosenkilde (ALT)	7.42	2.35	5.07
Alex Vanopslagh (LA)	8.91	3.99	4.92
Mette Frederiksen (S)	8.45	3.84	4.61
Lars Løkke-Rasmussen (M)	7.79	3.87	3.92
Søren Pape Poulsen (C)	6.97	3.15	3.82
Pia Olsen Dyhr (SPP)	7.81	4.18	3.63
Jakob Ellemann-Jensen (L)	6.71	3.30	3.41
Sofie Carsten-Nielsen (SL)	5.25	2.10	3.15

Notes: DD: Danish Democrats – Inger Støjberg, DPP: Danish People’s Party, NR: New Right, RGA: Red–Green Alliance, ALT: Alternatives, LA: Liberal Alliance, S: Social Democrats, M: Moderates, C: Conservatives, SSP: Socialist People’s Party, L: Liberals, SL: Social Liberals.

Figure 2. Share of preference votes across parties and presence of party leader on list. 2022 General Election.

Note: party abbreviations are M: Moderates, LA: Liberal Alliance, DD: Danish Democrats – Inger Støjberg, RGA: Red–Green Alliance, ALT: Alternative, DPP: Danish People’s Party, NR: New Right, FG: Free Greens, S: Social Democrats, SPP: Socialist People’s Party, CD: Christian Democrats, C: Conservatives, SL: Social Liberals, L: Liberals.

Table 2. Predicting preference vote cast.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Party leader list (H1b)	1.26 (0.14)***	0.17 (0.53)	1.18 (0.16)***	−0.77 (0.77)
Leader sympathy	0.03 (0.02)	0.02 (0.02)	0.03 (0.02)	0.04 (0.02)
Party supporter	0.64 (0.09)***	0.64 (0.10)***	0.61 (0.10)***	0.64 (0.09)***
Leader polarization	−0.28 (0.06)***	−0.28 (0.06)***	−0.28 (0.06)***	−0.34 (0.07)***
Party leader list × Leader sympathy (H2)		0.14 (0.06)*
Party leader list × Party supporter (H3)			0.33 (0.33)
Party leader list × Leader polarization (H4)				0.46 (0.18)**
Political interest
Not interested	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Only a little	−0.44 (0.36)	−0.43 (0.36)	−0.44 (0.36)	−0.46 (0.36)
Somewhat	−0.52 (0.36)	−0.51 (0.36)	−0.52 (0.36)	−0.54 (0.36)
Very	−0.31 (0.37)	−0.30 (0.37)	−0.31 (0.36)	−0.32 (0.37)
Education
Only primary school	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
High school	0.37 (0.23)	0.36 (0.23)	0.38 (0.23)	0.38 (0.23)
Vocational education	0.30 (0.17)	0.29 (0.17)	0.29 (0.17)	0.31 (0.17)
Higher education (<3 years)	0.07 (0.24)	0.08 (0.24)	0.07 (0.24)	0.10 (0.24)
Higher education (3–4 years)	0.41 (0.20)*	0.40 (0.20)*	0.41 (0.20)*	0.42 (0.20)*
Higer education (>4 years)	0.67 (0.22)**	0.66 (0.22)**	0.67 (0.21)**	0.68 (0.22)**
Woman	0.14 (0.09)	0.14 (0.09)	0.14 (0.09)	0.15 (0.09)
Age	0.01 (0.00)*	0.01 (0.00)*	0.01 (0.00)*	0.01 (0.00)*
Constant	1.25 (0.58)*	0.25 (0.74)	1.18 (0.58)*	−0.55 (0.89)
N	2,372	2,372	2,372	2,372
McFaddens R^2	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The dependent variable indicates whether the respondent reported to have voted for an individual candidate (1) or for the party list (0). All models are estimated with analytical weight “weight_1.”

Figure 3. Marginal effect of party leader running on list across voters’ party leader sympathy (H2).

Figure 4. Marginal effect of party leader running on list across voters supporting specific party or not (H3).

Figure 5. Marginal effect of party leader running on list across party leader polarization (H4).