Moral Politics: The Religious Factor in Referenda Voting

This article combines the research strands of moral politics and political behavior by focusing on the effect of individual and contextual religiosity on individual vote decisions in popular initiatives and public referenda concerning morally charged issues. We rely on a total of 13 surveys with 1,000 respondents each conducted after every referendum on moral policies in Switzerland between 1992 and 2012. Results based on cross-classified multilevel models show that religious behaving instead of nominal religious belonging plays a crucial role in decision making on moral issues. This supports the idea that the traditional confessional cleavage is replaced by a new religious cleavage that divides the religious from the secular. This newer cleavage is characterized by party alignments that extend from electoral to direct democratic voting behavior. Overall, our study lends support to previous findings drawn from American research on moral politics, direct democracies, and the public role of religion.

Zur neuen Relevanz des sozialen Kontexts für das Wahlverhalten. Antwort auf die kritischen Anmerkungen von Franz Urban Pappi

Wir antworten auf die Kritik an unserem Artikel (Ackermann u. Traunmüller 2014) und argumentieren, dass Theorien über die abnehmende Bedeutung sozial-struktureller Merkmale für das Wahlverhalten fehlgeleitet sind. Stattdessen interessiert uns die gehaltvollere Frage, wie und unter welchen Bedingungen sie politisch wirksam werden. Diese Theorieperspektive öffnet den Blick für regionale und temporale Variation sozialer Einflussprozesse, welche gängigen Ansichten zum Cleavage-Voting widersprechen. Wir unterstützen unser Argument, indem wir demonstrieren, dass soziale Kontexte für das individuelle Wahlverhalten heutzutage wichtiger sind als noch vor Jahrzehnten. Abschließend diskutieren wir weiterführende Implikationen für soziale Kontextanalysen des Wahlverhaltens.

A Validation Study on Voter Turnout Bias in Switzerland

Surveys on voting behavior typically overestimate turnout rates substantially. To disentangle different sources of bias - coverage error, nonresponse bias, and overreporting - we conducted a validation study in which respondents' self-reported voting behavior was compared to administrative voting records (N = 2000). Our results show that all three sources of error inflate the survey estimate of the turnout rate and also bias estimates from political participation models, although coverage error is only moderate compared to the more pronounced biases due to nonresponse and overreporting. Furthermore, results from a wording experiment do not provide evidence that revised wording reduces measurement bias.