Social Networks, Predispositions and Split-Ticket Voting: The Case of the 1990 German Unification Election
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321718761177 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Author | Debra Leiter |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718761177
Political Studies
2019, Vol. 67(1) 171 –190
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321718761177
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Social Networks,
Predispositions and Split-Ticket
Voting: The Case of the 1990
German Unification Election
Debra Leiter
Abstract
When casting a split-ticket ballot, voters in established democracies have strong political
predispositions and electoral experience that influence their decision. However, voters in a new
democracy, lacking long-term party attachment and experience with democracy, may instead be
informed and motivated by their social networks. Using the 1990 Cross-National Election Project
German Unification study, I examine which factors predict split-ticket voting for East and West
Germans. I find that political disagreement within a social network is more influential for East
Germans, while partisan predispositions, particularly party supporter type, play a greater role
for West Germans. These findings indicate that, in absence of competition between long-term
partisanship and democratic experience, network characteristics may have a profound impact on
political decision-making.
Keywords
split-ticket voting, networks, Germany, political behavior
Accepted: 2 February 2018
Although it varies cross-nationally and over time, most voters cast a unified party ballot
(Burden and Helmke, 2009; Gschwend and Van der Kolk, 2006; Schoen, 1999). And yet
a significant minority do divide their vote across multiple parties, that is, engage in split-
ticket voting (Burden and Helmke, 2009). While some voters may split their tickets ran-
domly (Schoen, 1999), most theories of split-ticket voting require either higher levels of
political information or different motivations from straight-ticket voting (Gschwend and
Van der Kolk, 2006). Given the relative rarity and the distinct motivations of the decision,
examining split-ticket voters in different political contexts may reveal something impor-
tant about voter decision-making.
Department of Political Science, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
Corresponding author:
Debra Leiter, Department of Political Science, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City,
MO 64110, USA.
Email: leiterd@umkc.edu
761177PSX0010.1177/0032321718761177Political StudiesLeiter
research-article2018
Article
172 Political Studies 67(1)
Voters in new and established democracies face different political realities. In
established democracies, voters are influenced by their political predispositions—
which motivate them to support multiple parties or specific candidates—and their
political experience—which provides information about the relative support and
positions of parties, and the likelihood of certain coalitions—when deciding to cast a
split-ticket ballot. Yet, these factors are generally unavailable to voters in new democ-
racies, as they have no political history with the new system (Riera, 2013). However,
voters in both established and new democracies can discuss political preferences with
their friends, neighbors, and colleagues, and these interactions influence their atti-
tudes and voting decisions (e.g. Huckfeldt et al., 2005; Pietryka, 2015; Ryan, 2011;
Smith, 2016). And in comparison to established democracies, since network influ-
ence does not compete with predispositions and experience—which have yet to fully
develop—we should see social influence via networks plays a more pronounced role
in shaping split-ticket voting.
Using the 1990 Cooperative Cross-National Electoral Survey in East and West
Germany, I examine what factors increase the probability that a citizen will split her ticket
across the candidate and party ballot of the national parliamentary election. As East
Germany entered into the existing institutions and party system of West Germany, we can
focus on political experience as a critical distinction between the two populations in
examining the relative influence of political predispositions and experience versus
networks.
I find that, when deciding to cast a split-ticket ballot, West and East Germans are influ-
enced by predispositions and network characteristics. However, East Germans are much
more influenced by disagreement in their networks than their West German counterparts,
while party supporter type plays a greater role for West Germans. These findings suggest
that that the importance of social networks is magnified when it does not compete with
predispositions; as such, for voters in new democracies, social communication may play
a profound role in political decision-making.
This research has important implications for the study of voter decision-making in old
and new democracies. By isolating voter, and not party, inexperience as the main distinc-
tion, we can see how voters respond to complex calculations absent a history with the
system, in this case by being more readily influenced by those around them. This reflects
something important both about how voters learn and how networks function—replacing,
enhancing, or competing with pre-existing preferences. For voters with weak or unin-
formative predispositions and experience, networks can drastically influence decision-
making. Since early political decisions tend to have a life-long influence, by understanding
how networks shape nascent preferences and complex political calculations, we may
have a better understanding of how they evolve over time.
Additionally, of course, this article proposes another answer to the question of how
voters in new democracies can and do engage in complex action—through cooperative
learning and influence of those around them. Thus, in studying behavior in new democra-
cies, paying attention to the social context is critical in understanding voter preference
development and, with it, system consolidation. Since early voter behavior massively
affects how the system consolidates and functions (Moser and Scheiner, 2009), and since
these voters operate with an informational deficit, by studying how networks shape com-
plex action like split-ticket voting, an action associated with support for third-party
growth and coalitional stability, we can see how the social, and not just institutional or
economic, context of new democracies shapes their consolidation.
To continue reading
Request your trial