Aus meinem Interesse an Kontexteffekten und an Effekten, die von Eigenschaften der Kandidaten ausgehen, hat sich in den letzten Jahren eine intensivere Beschäftigung mit dem Wahlverhalten in Großbritannien ergeben. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei die Frage, wie sich Wohnort bzw. Herkunft der Kandidaten auf deren Wahlchancen auswirken (Lokalismus). Aktuell untersuche ich mit einem von der Thyssen-Stiftung geförderten Projekt den Effekt dieser Variablen bei der Unterhauswahl vom März 2015. Frühere Publikationen beschäftigen sich mit der Unterhauswahl 2010 und der englischen Kommunalwahl 2013
- Arzheimer, Kai and Jocelyn Evans. “Geolocation and voting: candidate-voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 General Election in England.” Political Geography 31.5 (2012): 301–310. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.04.006
[BibTeX] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [HTML] [DATA]
The effect of geographical distance between candidate and voter on vote likelihood in the UK is essentially untested. In systems where constituency representatives vie for local inhabitants’ support in elections, candidates living closer to a voter would be expected to have a greater probability of receiving that individual’s support, other things being equal. In this paper, we present a first test of this concept using constituency data (specifically, notice of poll address data) from the British General Election of 2010 and the British Election Survey, together with geographical data from Ordnance Survey and Royal Mail, to test the hypothesis that candidate distance matters in voters’ choice of candidate. Using a conditional logit model, we find that the distance between voter and candidates from the three main parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat) matters in English constituencies, even when controlling for strong predictors of vote-choice, such as party feeling and incumbency advantage.
@Article{arzheimer-evans-2012, author = {Arzheimer, Kai and Evans, Jocelyn}, title = {Geolocation and voting: candidate-voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 General Election in England}, number = {5}, volume = {31}, abstract = {The effect of geographical distance between candidate and voter on vote likelihood in the UK is essentially untested. In systems where constituency representatives vie for local inhabitants' support in elections, candidates living closer to a voter would be expected to have a greater probability of receiving that individual's support, other things being equal. In this paper, we present a first test of this concept using constituency data (specifically, notice of poll address data) from the British General Election of 2010 and the British Election Survey, together with geographical data from Ordnance Survey and Royal Mail, to test the hypothesis that candidate distance matters in voters' choice of candidate. Using a conditional logit model, we find that the distance between voter and candidates from the three main parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat) matters in English constituencies, even when controlling for strong predictors of vote-choice, such as party feeling and incumbency advantage.}, journal = {Political Geography}, year = 2012, doi = {10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.04.006}, pages = {301--310}, keywords = {uk, gis}, html = {https://www.kai-arzheimer.com/paper/geolocation-voting-candidate-voter-distance-effects-party-choice-2010-general-election-england}, data = {https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PBCH00}, url = {https://www.kai-arzheimer.com/arzheimer-evans-geolocation-vote-england.pdf} } - Arzheimer, Kai and Jocelyn Evans. “Candidate Geolocation and Voter Choice in the 2013 English County Council Elections.” Research & Politics (2014). doi:10.1177/2053168014538769
[BibTeX] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [HTML]
The degree of ‘localness’ of candidates, including their residential location, has long been theorised to influence voters at election time. Individual-level tests of distance effects in the 2010 British general elections demonstrated that, controlling for standard explanations of vote, the distance from a voter’s home to that of the candidate was negatively associated with the likelihood of voting for that candidate. To test this theory in a sub-national electoral context more likely to produce distance effects than a national election, this paper builds upon previous analysis by using the 2013 English County Council elections. It improves upon the previous analysis in a number of ways, analysing an election where ‘localness’ effects would be expected to be stronger; combining a bespoke YouGov survey of voters with more precise locational data; including United Kingdom Independent Party candidates in its specification; and considering more closely how voters construe distance. It finds that distance does matter, not only as a linear measure but also in terms of candidates living in the same or different electoral division to voters. Finally, the paper simulates the effect of distance on candidate performances in this type of election to measure its real-world strength.
@Article{arzheimer-evans-2014b, author = {Arzheimer, Kai and Evans, Jocelyn}, title = {Candidate Geolocation and Voter Choice in the 2013 English County Council Elections}, journal = {Research \& Politics}, year = 2014, doi = {10.1177/2053168014538769}, html = {https://rap.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2053168014538769.full}, url = {https://rap.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2053168014538769.full.pdf+html}, abstract = {The degree of 'localness' of candidates, including their residential location, has long been theorised to influence voters at election time. Individual-level tests of distance effects in the 2010 British general elections demonstrated that, controlling for standard explanations of vote, the distance from a voter's home to that of the candidate was negatively associated with the likelihood of voting for that candidate. To test this theory in a sub-national electoral context more likely to produce distance effects than a national election, this paper builds upon previous analysis by using the 2013 English County Council elections. It improves upon the previous analysis in a number of ways, analysing an election where 'localness' effects would be expected to be stronger; combining a bespoke YouGov survey of voters with more precise locational data; including United Kingdom Independent Party candidates in its specification; and considering more closely how voters construe distance. It finds that distance does matter, not only as a linear measure but also in terms of candidates living in the same or different electoral division to voters. Finally, the paper simulates the effect of distance on candidate performances in this type of election to measure its real-world strength. } }