Voter Sophistication and Voting Behavior in Türkiye

Year 2025, Volume: 35 Issue: 1, 293 - 302, 24.01.2025

Gül Arıkan Akdağ , Murat İnan

https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.1586628

Abstract

The objective of this study is to test MacDonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug’s (1995) argument suggesting a link between voter sophistication and two models of spatial theory of party competition: the proximity model and the directional model. They argued that as the proximity model is more cognitively demanding than the directional one, it provides a more eligible formula for sophistication of voters. Although they did not find support, we suggest that this finding may derive from their case selection and methodological preferences. In a non-Western country, where there are striking and widespread implications of differences between education levels, a different picture may emerge. We also decided to use an alternative measurement for political sophistication: multiplication of education and actual political knowledge, which we believe is a better proxy for sophistication. We employed Comparative Study of Election Systems (CSES) data of 2015 for Türkiye. The final dataset holds answers of 249 respondents, which are voters of the four most-voted political parties in Türkiye: the Justice and Development Party (JDP), the Republican People’s Party (RPP), the National Action Party (NAP), and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The findings partly confirm the original argument to understand voting preferences of those who are politically sophisticated.

Keywords

Spatial theories of party competition, voting behavior, voter sophistication, Turkish politics.

Türkiyede Seçmen Karmaşıklığı ve Oy Verme Davranışı

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, MacDonald, Rabinowitz ve Listhaug’ın (1995) seçmen karmaşıklığı ile parti rekabetine dair uzamsal teoriye ilişkin iki rakip model olan yakınlık modeli ve yön modeli arasında bir bağlantı öneren argümanlarını test etmektir. Yazarlar, yakınlık modelinin yön modeline göre daha bilişsel açıdan zorlu olduğundan, eğitimli ve siyasi olarak ilgili seçmenlerin oy davranışlarını anlamak için ilk modelin ikinci modele göre daha uygun bir formül sunduğunu ileri sürmüşlerdir. Yazarlar bu argümanı destekleyen bir kanıt bulamamış olsalar da, biz bu sonucun yazarların vaka seçimi ve metodolojik tercihlerinden kaynaklanabileceğini önermekteyiz. Eğitim seviyeleri arasındaki farkların belirgin ve yaygın olduğu Batı dışı bir ülkede farklı bir tablonun ortaya çıkabileceğini düşünülmektedir. Dahası, siyasi karmaşıklığı eğitim ve siyasi bilginin çarpımıyla oluşturulan alternatif bir ölçümünü kullanmaya karar verdik. Bu tür bir ölçümün siyasi karmaşıklığın daha objectif bir göstergesi olduğu varsayılmaktadır. Bu amaçla, Türkiye için 2015 yılına ait Karşılaştırmalı Seçim Sistemleri Çalışması (CSES) verilerini kullanılmıştır. Nihai veri seti, Türkiye'de en çok oy alan dört siyasi partinin Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Ak Parti), Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP), Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (MHP) ve Halkların Demokratik Partisi (HDP) seçmenlerinden oluşan 249 katılımcının yanıtlarını içermektedir. Bulgular, orijinal argümanı kısmı olarak doğrulayan kanıtlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Parti rekabetinin uzamsal teorileri, oy verme davranışı, seçmen karmaşıklığı, Türkiye siyaseti.

References

• Adams, J., & Merril III, S. (1999). Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme?. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 765-791. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2991834
• Ames, B. (1995). Electoral rules, constituency pressures, and pork barrel: bases of voting in the Brazilian Congress. The Journal of politics, 57(2), 324-343.
• Arıkan-Akdağ, G. (2016). Rational political parties and electoral games: the AKP's strategic move for the Kurdish vote in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 17(1), 126-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1103188
• Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2001). Measuring strategic voting in multiparty plurality elections. Electoral Studies, 20(3), 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00017-2
• Cox, G. W. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 903-935. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2111465
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Hinich, M. J. (2006). A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Electoral Studies, 25(2), 369-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.06.010
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135-150. https://www.jstore.org/stable/1827369
• Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. CUP Archive.
• Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 7(1), 25-46.
• Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. University of Michigan Press.
• Hinich, M. J., & Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 323-341. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2110856
• İnan, M., & Arıkan-Akdağ, G. (2024). Proximity or Directional Model of Voting for the Turkish Voter? Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(2), 353-365
• Kedar, O. (2005). When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancingin parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 185-199.
• Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political behavior, 12, 331-361.
• Meyer, T. M., & Müller, W. C. (2014). Testing theories of party competition: The Austrian case. Party Politics, 20(5), 802-813.
• Macdonald, S. E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (1995). Political sophistication and models of issue voting, British Journal of Political, 25(4), 453-483. https://www.jstore.org/stable/194129
• Macdonald, S. E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (1998). On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. The Journal of Politics, 60(3), 653-690. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2647643
• Macdonald, S. E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (2001). Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 482-500. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2691761
• Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368-377. Westholm, A. (1997). Proximity versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 865-883. https://www.jstore.org/stable/2952170