Comportamento Eleitoral

Aula 11Ciencia Politica

CGAEKurt von Mettenheim

Topics

1) Behavioral Revolution in political science

2) Frequencies & Typology of Mass Belief Systems

3) Correlations & Issue Voting4) Regressions & Causal Modeling5) “The Brazilian Voter” + 15(!) years6) Brazilian Democracy: Critical Elections,

Party Realignments, Supercoalitions

1) Revolução Behavioralista

Versus Freudian Psychology* “comportamento observado”* questionário

Versus Sociologia Demográfico e dados agregados desde Durkheim:

Census ComparisonPara Linz = “Falha Ecológica” precisa focalizar o indivíduo

History of Public Opinion Studies

• 1930s-40s Laswell & Chicago School(problem = fascism/communism &

propoganda)

• 1950s Stauffer “Communism & Civil Rights” (problem = Senador McCarthy & CPI anti-communist)

MARCO de Método e Teoria:P. Converse: “Mass Belief Systems”

2) “Mass Belief Systems”P. Converse, 1964

Tipologia de Conceitualizações da Política

Tipo % 1958 % 1964---------------------------------------------------------Ideologue 5 8Near-Ideologue 8 12Group Interest 20 23Nature of Times 40 40No Content 27 27

3) Issue VotingRange & Constraint of Mass Belief

System

Range: Number of Beliefs

Y NNA

Privatizar?

Mais Policia?

Reforma Politica?

Aumentar Imposto?

BACEN Autonomo?

Constraint

If YES Privatize, then NO Tax Increase =

CORRELATION

If YES BACEN Autonomo, then YES Privatize…

4) Regressions & Causal Modeling

Theory: ECON Vote

Test Theory? Variável = PIB,

IPCA?,

Gini Coefficient?

Parsimony vs Causal Weight

a Party ID b

f

ECON g Candidate h Vote

e

c Ideology d

Aumentar Explicação ...

1) Vote = e + econ

2) Vote = e + (g x h) + (a x b) + (c x d) +

(c x e x h) + (a x f x h)

1) R2 = 2.02) R2 = 9.0

Causal Models

Long-Term Short-Term--------------------------------------- ----------------Demography Political Political--------------------------------------- ----------------Income EconAge Party IDRegion Policies VoteRace Pol. Soc.Gender CandidateEducation

5) The Brazilian Voter

Eleições de 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986

Identificou a organização RÁPIDA da Opinião Pública Brasileira

vs 1970 Brazil (Eleição em Regime Militar!)

vs 1950s EUA (despolitizado: 1960s muda)

Tipologia de Conceitualizações da Politica

Tipo EUA BRAZIL

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ideologue 8 2

Near-Ideologue 12 3

Group Interest 23 4

Nature of Times 40 45

No Content 27 45

Tipo BRAZIL---------------------------------------------------------Personalist 23Immediate 32

Problem: “Master Coding” of Open Question

Content? Via: Corr? Issue? Ed?

The Brazilian Voter cont.

Chapter 6 = Party Identification in 1982Rsq = 0.85 – 0.95 !!!!

3 Teorias sobre como se forma “IDENTIFICAÇÃO PARTIDÁRIA”

1) Political Socialization PID2) Civil Society PID3) Elections PID

(Weber/Keys/Burnham: Plebiscitary Vote & Political Machines)

The Brazilian Voter cont.

Chapter 7 = Issue Voting (lembra 2o marco metodológico… correlações)

Rsq = 0.24

SE = Local < & National >

NE / Rural = Local > & National <

The Brazilian Voter cont.

Chapter 8 : Accountability* Old, Contested Concept in Political Theory (para cima, horizontal, ? )

* New Concept: Causal Logic of PublicOpinionPIB/Employment Vote pro-contra GOVQ: Individual (US) vs Society (FR/Brazil)Q: Executive? Leg? Fed/State/Mun?

The Brazilian Voter cont.

Chapter 9 Participation W. Gallie: “Essentially Contested Concepts”

Outro marco metodológico: Análise Fatorial(1=mídia, 2=sociedade civil, 3= processo eleitoral em

si)

Como se cria, qual é o impacto de PARTICIPAÇÃO? Corporativismo: hierarquias Sociedade Civil: mobilização de baixoPolítica Partidária-Eleitoral: “Nível de Análise>”

The Brazilian Voter cont.

Value of Democracy* Psychology: “Cognitive Dissonance”

Vote Believe (Rustow, Luxemburg)* Tolerance: Petition/Strike/Occupy Building* Q Method: Factor Analysis: Actions/Beliefs

6) New Concepts for Brazilian Democracy

1) 1994 = Critical Election (Eleição Crítica)US = 1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1964

2) Toucan & PT Supercoalitions (Presidencialismo de Coalizão)

3) Multi-Party Realignment (Realinhamento Partidário)

National Local ChangeSeparation of powersPresidential & federal institutions

Classics: Max Weber & V.O. Key

US Political Development"That the plebiscitary 'machine' has developed so early in

America is due to the fact that there, and there alone, the executive -- this is what mattered -- the chief office of patronage, was a president elected by plebiscite." (Weber, 1946, p. 108).

Critical Elections and Realignment“in which voters are … unusually deeply concerned, in which

the extent of electoral involvement is relatively quite high, and in which the decisive results of the voting reveal a sharp alteration of the pre-existing cleavage within the electorate. Moreover, and perhaps this is the truly differentiating characteristic of this election, the realignment made manifest in such elections seems to persist for several succeeding elections.” (Key, 1955, p. 4)

Example: 1932

Key focuses on the persistence of votes shifting to democrats in New England in 1924 and 1928 thereafter,

Followers focus on 1932 as the critical election: one with (just under) a 20 percent drop for republicans and (just under) a 20 percent increase for democrats:

1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 Democrats 27.4 46.1 34.1 28.8 40.8 57.4 60.8 54.7 53.4 Republicans 41.8 49.2 60.3 54.0 58.2 39.6 36.5 44.7 45.9 Progressives 16.6

Critical Elections in US History

1) Jacksonian democrats (1828 election), 2) Republican ascendancy after civil war and

the end of slavery (1860 election) 3) The rise of corporate capitalism and

republican defeat of populism (1896 election), 4) The depression and New Deal (1932

election), 5) Decline of the democratic south as either a

1948+ secular realignment or a critical election in 1964 or 1994.

1994 = Critical ElectionPresidential Vote by Party, 1945-

2006

PSD/PTB UDN Other million voters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1945 54.1 33.9 9.6 6.0 1950 46.6 28.4 20.6 8.2 1955 33.8 28.6 32.2 9.0 1960 28.5 41.7 16.3 12.5 PSDB PT Other 1989 10.7 16.0 73.3 82.0 1994 54.2 27.0 18.8 94.7 1998 53.0 31.7 15.3 106.1 2002 33.3 52.8 13.9 115.2 2006 41.6 48.6 9.8 125.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1989-2006 data report first round voting. Values = percent valid votes.

Critical Election Realignment

PT + PSDB Share of Presidential and Legislative Votes, 1982-2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

1982 1986 1989/1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

President

FederalChamber

StateAssemblies

Presidential Critical Election Congressional Realignment

PSD PTB UDN allied other 1945 42.6 10.1 26.5 0.0 17.2 1950 30.5 18.6 19.2 22.9 21.7 1954 21.6 14.6 13.3 25.2 18.5 1958 18.0 14.4 12.9 32.6 12.6 1962 15.0 11.6 10.8 39.7 4.9

Arena MDB Blank/Null 1966 50.5 28.4 21.0 1970 48.4 21.3 30.3 1974 40.9 37.8 21.3 1978 40.0 39.3 20.7 PSDB PT PMDB PFL PDS other 1982 3.5 43.0 43.2 12.3 1986 6.9 47.8 17.7 7.9 19.7 1990 8.7 10.2 19.3 12.4 8.9 40.5 1994 14.0 13.1 20.3 12.8 9.2 40.6 1998 17.5 13.2 15.2 17.3 11.3 25.5 2002 14.3 18.4 13.4 18.4 7.8 27.7 2006 Source: Supreme Electoral Court and Iuperj

Prefeituras por partido, 1982-2004

PSDB PT PMDB PFL PDS* other Municipalities 1982 0.1 34.9 64.3 0.7 3941 1985 0.5 63.2 12.4 10.9 13.0 201** 1988 0.4 0.9 37.5 24.7 10.4 6.1 4287 1992 6.7 1.1 33.7 20.3 7.6 20.6 4762 1996 17.1 2.0 24.1 17.4 11.6 28.8 5378 2000 17.8 3.4 22.6 18.5 11.1 26.6 5559 2004 15.7 7.9 19.1 14.2 9.9 33.0 5560

“Supercoalitions” Social Security Reform

(6 August 2003)

Government

Coalition Y/N&Absent Opposition Y/N&Absent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PT 80/13 PFL 33/36 PMDB 45/22 PSDB 29/30 PTB 39/11 Minor Parties 3/6 PP 31/17 Opposition Total 65/72 PL 37/2 Minor Parties 61/12 TOTAL YES = 358 Total Coalition 293/76 TOTAL NO&Ab = 154 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Federal Chamber

Supercoalition Votes:Tax Reform9 Sept 2003

Government Coalition Y/N&Absent Opposition Y/N&Absent PT 87/5 PFL 15/54 PMDB 70/7 PSDB 24/31 PTB 43/10 Minor Parties 3/2 PP 35/14 Opposition Total 42/87 PL 38/1 Minor Parties 63/8 TOTAL YES = 378 Total Coalition 336/43 TOTAL NO&Abs = 134 Source: Federal Chamber

Total Vote by Party Mayoral Elections, 1996-2004

1996 2000 2004 1994-00 2000-04---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PT 7,893,509 11,938,734 16,314,314 51.2 36.6PSDB 13,065,103 13,518,346 15,726,415 3.4 16.3PMDB 12,716,976 13,257,675 14,231,192 4.2 5.3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PFL 10,072,522 12,973,437 11,253,898 28.8 -13.2 PDT 6,956,642 5,611,888 5,576,508 -19.3 -0.6 PP 9,776,752 6,812,742 6,092,683 -30.3 -10.5PTB 4,354,264 5,804,047 5,257,528 33.3 -9.4---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PL 1,971,267 2,541,572 5,040,885 28.9 98.3PPS 496,150 3,509,922 4,984,431 607.4 40.9PSB 2,816,484 3,861,987 4,465,048 37.1 15.6PCdoB 191,175 382,827 887,478 100.2 131.8 Other 3,801,025 4,307,056 5,317,244 13.3 23.4Total 74,111,896 84,520,333 95,111,624 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Superior Electoral Court, available at www.tse.gov.br

Number of MayorsBy Party, 1988-2004

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PT 38 54 110 187 411 PSDB 18 317 921 990 870 PMDB 1606 1605 1295 1257 1054 PFL 1058 965 934 1028 790 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Supreme Electoral Court

Mayorships, 1996-2004

Total Number of Mayorships by Party , 1996-2004

1996 2000 2004 1996-2000 2000-2004-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PT 110 187 411 70.0 119.8PSDB 921 990 870 7.5 -12.1PMDB 1,295 1,257 1,054 -2.9 -16.1PFL 934 1,028 790 10.1 -23.2PDT 436 288 304 -33.9 5.6PP 625 618 552 -1.1 -10.7PTB 382 398 423 4.2 6.3PL 222 234 380 5.4 62.4PPS 33 166 306 403.0 84.3PSB 150 133 175 -11.3 31.6PC do B 0 1 10 100.0 900.0Other 270 259 275 -4.1 6.2Total 5,378 5,559 5,550 - -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Superior Electoral Court. Available at www.tse.gov.br

Percent ChangeYear

From 2004 to 2006

PT Supercoalition, Lula 2nd Term 2006-2010PSDB Opposition SP Gov Alckimin,

MG Gov Neves?

PMDB: Machine BasesPFL: Regional & Machine Bases

Minor Parties: PL, PDT, PP, PTB, PPS, PSB

7) Political Scenarios for 2006 Elections and 2007-2010 Coalition

Government in Brazil

Material prepared for consultancy

Kurt von Mettenheim GLG & FGV-EAESP

21 June 2006

Political Scenarios

Scenarios turn on October 2006 Elections:

Most likely scenario = President Lula reelected and PT Coalition Government formed 2007-2010.

Next most likely scenario = PSDB candidate Alkimin elected and PSDB-PFL coalition government formed.

Voter Preference, 2005-2006

2005 2006 --------------------------------- ------------------------------ 6/1 12/7 21/10 14/12 2/2 21/2 17/3 7/4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lula, PT 38 36 33 30 36 43 42 40 Alckmin, PSDB 15 16 17 22 20 17 23 20 Garotinho, PMDB 13 12 13 14 13 11 12 15 other 12 11 14 11 10 9 10 11 undecided 8 8 10 8 7 7 5 5 null/blank 14 16 15 15 12 12 8 10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4

Voter Preference, by Gender, Education, Income

Gender Education* Income* ------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- Men Women 0-6 7-12 12+ <=5 5-10 10+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lula, PT 46 34 43 38 27 42 35 23 Alkimin, PSDB 21 18 16 21 32 17 28 40 Garotinho, PMDB 13 16 16 16 6 16 12 4 Other/None/ 18 32 25 25 35 25 15 33 Undecided/Null Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4 *Education = years schooling **Income = multiple of minimum salary (R$350.00)

Voter Preference, 2nd Round(if no candidate> 50% valid votes, held

four weeks after 1st Round)

2005 2006 ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ 16/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 14/12 2/2 21/2 17/3 7/4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lula, PT 54 49 45 45 41 48 53 50 52 Alckmin, PSDB 28 33 35 37 40 39 35 38 37 undecided 4 3 4 5 6 4 3 3 3 null/blank/none 14 15 15 13 14 9 9 9 8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4

Rejection Levels of Major Candidates

21/2 17/3 7/4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Garotinho, PMDB 37 39 32 Lula, PT 30 33 29 Alckmin, PSDB 15 16 17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4

Corruption in Lula´s Government?

2004 2005 2006 ------ --------------------------------- --------------------- 1/3 1/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 2/2 21/2 7/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes 32 65 78 83 81 82 77 79 No 42 21 12 10 10 9 14 11 Don´t Know 26 15 10 7 9 9 10 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4

Voter Perceptions of Congress

2003 2004 2005 2006 ------ ------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------- 15/12 17/12 1/6 16/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 2/2 17/3 7/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bad/Terrible 22 28 36 42 46 48 46 33 41 47 OK 46 45 42 38 36 35 35 43 37 34 Good/Great 24 17 15 15 11 12 12 16 14 13 Don´t Know 8 9 7 5 7 5 7 8 8 6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4

Explore Electoral Behavior

www.marketingpolitico.com.br

www.apsanet.org Browse “PROceedings”

electoral behavior sections