Coleman, Stephen (2009): Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008.
Download (155kB) | Preview
In 2007 Russian voters elected representatives to the State Duma under new electoral procedures that President V. Putin had instituted. A presidential election followed in 2008 leading to Putin’s new role as Prime Minister. To many observers, the reforms and the election campaigns resulted in a party system manipulated to the advantage of the government, although Putin’s reported goal was to reduce the number of political parties. Earlier research [1,2,6] reported that social conformity exerted a strong, persistent, and predictable influence on voting in national elections from 1991 to 2003. This analysis examines how the effect of social conformity on Russian voters might have changed from earlier elections as a result of the electoral reforms and campaign practices. Specific questions addressed are how well the political party system now aligns with the interests of voters, and whether this type of analysis can speak to fairness of the elections.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008|
|Keywords:||Russia, voting, elections, mathematical model, social norms, social conformity, political party system, entropy|
|Subjects:||C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C51 - Model Construction and Estimation
D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
|Depositing User:||Stephen Coleman|
|Date Deposited:||31. Jan 2009 16:30|
|Last Modified:||19. Feb 2013 16:55|
1. Coleman, S. The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior. Political Analysis. 2004. Vol. 12. P. 76-96.
2. Coleman, S. Popular Delusions: How Social Conformity Molds Society and Politics. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press, 2007.
3. Cialdini, R.B. Influence: Science and Practice. 3rd ed. N.Y.: Harper Collins, 1993.
4. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C.A. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. Vol. 58. P. 1015-1026.
5. Blais, A. To Voter or Not to Vote: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000.
6. Бородин, А.Д., [Borodin, A.D.] Согласованность коллективных действий в поведении российских избирателей [The Effect of Social Conformity on the Behavior of Russian Voters], ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЙ ЖУРНАЛ ВШЭ [Economic Journal HSE]. 2005. Tom 9. № 1: 74-81.
7. Mueller, D.C. Public Choice II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
8. Green, D.P. and Shapiro, I. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.
9. MacAllister, I.R, Johnston, J., Pattie, C., Tunstall, H., Dorling, D.F.L., and Rossiter, D.J. Class Dealignment and the Neighborhood Effect: Miller Revisited. British Journal of Political Science. 2001. Vol. 31, P. 41-60.
10. Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
11. Knack, S. Civic Norms, Social Sanctions, and Voter Turnout. Rationality and Society. 1992. Vol. 4. P. 133-156.
12. Knack, S. and Kropf, M.E. For Shame! The Effect of Community Cooperative Context and the Probability of Voting. Political Psychology. 1998. Vol. 19. P. 585-599.
13. Hasher, L. and Zacks, R. Automatic Processing of Fundamental Information: The Case of Frequency of Occurrence. American Psychologist. 1984. Vol. 39. P. 1372-1388.
14. Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1969.
15. Norwich, K. Information, Sensation and Perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.
16. Miller, G. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review. 1956. Vol. 63. P. 81-97.
17. Coleman, S. Testing Theories with Qualitative and Quantitative Predictions. European Political Science. 2007. Vol. 6. P. 124-133.
18. “Russian Duma elections ‘not held on a level playing field’, say parliamentary observers.” Council of Europe. 3.12.2007.
19. Rose, R. and Mischler, W. How do Electors Respond to an Unfair Election? The Experience of Russians. CSPP Studies in Public Policy, Paper SPP46. Center for the Study of Public Policy, University of Aberdeen.
Available Versions of this Item
- Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008. (deposited 31. Jan 2009 16:30) [Currently Displayed]