Correct Voting at the 2013 German Federal Election: An Analysis of Normatively Desirable Campaign Effects

Abstract

This article studies campaign effects at the 2013 German Federal Election. It analyses whether and how the 2013 campaign contributed to electors' ability to cast votes in line with their political preferences – ‘correct’ votes in the terminology of Lau and Redlawsk. The article takes a novel perspective at correct voting by analysing its dynamic development during the course of an election campaign, using observational data collected by means of a rolling cross-section survey. It finds that voters’ likelihood to choose correctly significantly increased during the election campaign. Two campaign-induced processes in particular contributed to explaining this development: voters' growing involvement with electoral politics and their decreasing indifference with regard to the parties competing for their votes. These findings suggest that by stimulating citizens to engage more intensively with electoral politics campaigns can strengthen the linkage between voters’ preferences and their actual voting behaviour. Despite much criticism of how they are conducted, election campaigns can exert normatively desirable effects, thereby improving the quality of representative democracy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Robert Rohrschneider, Neil Hatton, Louisa Plasberg, Christoph Diringer and Elisabeth Christian for valuable advice and constructive comments on previous versions of this article as well as to Josephine Hörl for her careful language editing.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ben Christian is BA candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Mannheim.

Notes

1 Sascha Huber, ‘Politisches Lernen im Wahlkampf bei der Bundestagswahl 2009′, in Thorsten Faas, Kai Arzheimer, Sigrid Roßteutscher and Bernhard Weßels (eds), Koalitionen, Kandidaten, Kommunikation (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2013), p.173.

2 Thomas E. Patterson, ‘The 1976 horserace’, The Wilson Quarterly 1/3 (1977), pp.73–9.

3 Christina Holtz-Bacha, ‘Entertainisierung der Politik’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 31/1 (2000), p.156.

4 Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and David M. Farrell, ‘Studying Political Campaigns and Their Effects’, in David M. Farrell and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck (eds), Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendum (New York: Routledge, 2002), pp.16–17; Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, ‘New Modes of Campaigning’, in Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.753–7.

5 Bingham Powell, ‘The Chain of Responsiveness’, Journal of Democracy 15/4 (2004), pp.91–105.

6 Ibid., p.97.

7 Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, American Political Science Review 91/3 (1997), pp.585–98.

8 Richard R. Lau, David J. Andersen and David P. Redlawsk, ‘An Exploration of Correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections’, American Journal of Political Science 52/2 (2008), p.396.

9 Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, p.586.

10 See Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’; Lau et al., ‘Exploration of Correct Voting’; Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk, How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Richard R. Lau, Parina Patel, Dalia F. Fahmy and Robert R. Kaufman, ‘Correct Voting across Thirty-Three Democracies: A Preliminary Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 44/2 (2014), pp.239–59; Sean Richey, ‘The Social Basis of Voting Correctly’, Political Communication 25/4 (2008), pp.366–76; Anand Edward Sokhey and Scott D. McClurg, ‘Social Networks and Correct Voting’, Journal of Politics 74/3 (2012), pp.751–64; Matthew A. Baum and Angela S. Jamison, ‘The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently’, Journal of Politics 68/4 (2006), pp.946–59.

11 For an exception see Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Patrick Kraft, ‘Political Information Flows and Consistent Voting: Personal Conversations, Mass Media, Party Campaigns, and the Quality of Voting Decisions at the 2009 German Federal Election’, in Bernhard Weßels, Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck (eds), Voters on the Move or on the Run? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp.193–216.

12 Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide, p.16.

13 Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, p.586.

14 Ibid., p.585; see as well, for example, Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996); and for the German context, for example, Jürgen Maier, ‘Was die Bürger über Politik (nicht) wissen – und was die Massenmedien damit zu tun haben – ein Forschungsüberblick’, PVS Sonderheft 42 (2009), pp.393–414.

15 Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide, p.16.

16 See Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’; Lau et al., ‘Exploration of Correct Voting’; Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide; Lau et al., ‘Correct Voting across Thirty-Three Democracies’.

17 Andrew Gelman and Gary King, ‘Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?’, British Journal of Political Science 23/4 (1993), p.433f.

18 Ibid., p.435.

19 Ibid., p.433.

20 Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, p.591.

21 Gelman and King, ‘Why Are American Presidential Election’; Kevin Arceneaux, ‘Do Campaigns Help Voters Learn? A Cross-National Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 36/1 (2005), pp.159–73; Randolph T. Stevenson and Lynn Vavreck, ‘Does Campaign Length Matter? Testing for Cross-National Effects’, British Journal of Political Science 30/2 (2000), pp.217–35; Richard Johnston, Julia Partheymüller and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, ‘Activation of Fundamentals in German Campaigns’, in Weßels et al. (eds), Voters on the Move, pp.217–37.

22 Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944).

23 Pippa Norris, A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Post-Industrial Societies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

24 Ibid., p.18.

25 Ibid., p.318.

26 Gelman and King, ‘Why Are American Presidential Election’, p.435.

27 Lazarsfeld et al., The People's Choice.

28 Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee, Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Election (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1954), p.183.

29 Ibid., p.183.

30 Hans Rattinger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Bernhard Weßels and Christof Wolf, Rolling Cross-Section-Wahlkampfstudie mit Nachwahl-Panelwelle GLES 2013 (GESIS Datenarchiv 2014, Köln: ZA5703 Datenfile Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.11892).

31 Richard Johnston and Henry E. Brady, ‘The Rolling Cross-Section Design’, Electoral Studies 21/2 (2002), pp.283–95.

32 Julia Partheymüller, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Christian Hoops, ‘Kampagnendynamik bei der Bundestagswahl 2013: Die Rolling Cross-Section-Studie im Rahmen der German Longitudinal Election Study’, Arbeitspapiere des Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung 154 (2013), p.11.

33 Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, p.589; for the alternative experimental approach see Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide, p.54ff.

34 Patrick Kraft, ‘Correct Voting in Deutschland: Eine Analyse der Qualität individueller Wahlentscheidungen bei der Bundestagswahl 2009′, Arbeitspapiere des Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung 148 (2012), p.18.

35 Lau et al., ‘Correct Voting across Thirty-Three Democracies’, p.247.

36 Tatjana Rudi and Harald Schoen, ‘Verwählt? Eine Analyse des Konzepts “korrektes Wählen” bei der Bundestagswahl 2009′, in Bernhard Weßels, Harald Schoen and Oscar W. Gabriel (eds), Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009 (Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2013), pp.407–25.

37 Kraft, ‘Correct Voting in Deutschland’.

38 Lau et al., ‘Correct Voting across Thirty-Three Democracies’.

39 Kraft, ‘Correct Voting in Deutschland’.

40 Lau et al., ‘Correct Voting across Thirty-Three Democracies’.

41 Ibid., p.247f.

42 Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).

43 See, for example, Lau and Redlawsk, ‘Voting Correctly’, p.589.

44 All analyses in this article were calculated as well once with the party identification instead of the candidate evaluation. Except for small differences concerning the level of the total correct voting amounts, all these analyses show exactly the same pattern of results.

45 To illustrate this complicated coding procedure, let us consider the following hypothetical example: a respondent is convinced that the CDU/CSU is most capable of solving the political problem he or she considers most important. The CDU/CSU is therefore assigned a score of +1.0 on this dimension whereas all other parties are coded as –1.0 (since they have not been mentioned by the respondent). Further, let us assume that the respondent's ideal point on the taxation/welfare issue is closest to the perceived position of the CDU/CSU, followed by the position of the FDP. The CDU/CSU is then assigned a score of +1.0 on this dimension, the FDP is coded as +0.5. All other parties are assigned scores in descending order according to their relative distance to the respondent's own policy preference (e.g. SPD: 0; Greens: –0.5; Left: –1.0). Finally, a similar procedure is applied to the respondent's evaluations of the parties' leading candidates. Suppose, for instance, that he or she evaluates Angela Merkel (CDU/CSU) most favourably and Gregor Gysi (Left) most negatively. This leads to a score of +1.0 for the Christian Democrats, and a score of –1.0 for the Left, whereas the other parties are assigned scores in between, depending on where their candidates rank for this respondent (e.g. Greens: +0.5; SPD: 0; FDP: –0.5). After averaging across these three dimensions, it is obvious that the CDU/CSU is top ranked in this individual party ranking. Concerning the final coding of the correct voting variable, there are now three possibilities. If the respondent indeed wants to vote for the CDU/CSU, his or her voting intention is classified as ‘correct’ (code 1 on the resulting variable). If he or she aims to choose another party, the classification depends on his or her coalition preference. A vote for the FDP would also be classified as ‘correct’ if the respondent stated that he or she is most in favour of a black–yellow coalition. In contrast, a preference for any other party, or a preference for the FDP without a matching coalition preference would be classified as ‘incorrect’ (code 0).

46 Wording: ‘And how interested are you in particular in the current campaign for the forthcoming Federal Election?’

47 Wording: ‘And how important are the results of the forthcoming Federal Election to you personally?’

48 Wording: ‘In the Federal Election, you have two votes: the first vote and the second vote. Which one of the two is decisive for the relative strengths of the parties in the Bundestag?’

49 See, for a similar operationalisation of indifference, Markus Steinbrecher, ‘Are Alienation and Indifference the New Features of Elections?’, in Weßels et al. (eds), Voters on the Move, p.270.

50 Reuben Baron and David Kenny, ‘The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51/6 (1986), pp.1173–82.

51 Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide, p.210.

52 See Henning Best and Christof Wolf, ‘Modellvergleich und Ergebnisinterpretation in Logit-und Probit-Regressionen’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 64/2 (2012), p.382f.

53 For example Lau and Redlawsk, ‘An Exploration of Correct Voting’, p.404.

54 Norris, A Virtuous Circle, p.18.

55 For instance see Lau and Redlawsk, ‘An Exploration of Correct Voting’, p.403.

56 In a more extensive analysis similar patterns can also be found for voters' exposure to the parties' TV ads. However, due to the fact that respondents were asked about TV ads only in the last month before the election (starting on 25 August, the date when they were first broadcast), the number of cases is too small to compare the results with other models. Still, it deserves mention that, first, exposure to televised party advertisements increased considerably in the course of the campaign, and that, second, exposure to party ads had a significant and autonomous effect on correct voting, too. Yet, in all likelihood as a consequence of the insufficient number of cases this effect is not robust and loses its significance if one includes the other mediator variables in the model.

57 Gelman and King, ‘Why Are American Presidential Election’.

58 Powell, ‘The Chain of Responsiveness’.