No abstract

This paper compares offline and online petition signing in Australia, to examine whether online forms of political activity can mobilise citizens who would otherwise not participate. Using data from the 2010 Australian Election Study and a model of civic voluntarism comprising online and offline resources, the study presents several unexpected findings. First, women are significantly more likely than men to sign both written and e-petitions, and this will likely continue with the increasing circulation of epetitions and corresponding decline in written petitions. Second, Australians from a non-English speaking background are underrepresented in written petition signing but not e-petition signing. While civic skills gained in the workplace and voluntary organisations positively predict both forms of petition signing, language, gender and income do not constitute barriers to e-petition signing. This study contributes to emerging evidence the internet can mobilise traditionally underrepresented groups to participate in political activity.

No abstract

Previous research on support for gender quotas focuses on attitudes toward gender equality and government intervention as explanations. We argue the role of attitudes toward women in understanding support for policies aiming to increase the presence of women in politics is ambivalent—both hostile and benevolent forms of sexism contribute in understanding support, albeit in different ways. Using original data from a survey conducted on a probability‐based sample of Australian respondents, our findings demonstrate that hostile sexists are more likely to oppose increasing of women's presence in politics through the adoption of gender quotas. Benevolent sexists, on the other hand, are more likely to support these policies than respondents exhibiting low levels of benevolent sexism. We argue this is because benevolent sexism holds that women are pure and need protection; they do not have what it takes to succeed in politics without the assistance of quotas. Finally, we show that while women are more likely to support quotas, ambivalent sexism has the same relationship with support among both women and men. These findings suggest that aggregate levels of public support for gender quotas do not necessarily represent greater acceptance of gender equality generally.

This article examines the 2013 Australian federal election to test two competing models of vote choice: spatial politics and valence issues. Using data from the 2013 Australian Election Study, the analysis finds that spatial politics (measured by party identification and self-placement on the left-right spectrum) and valence issues both have significant effects on vote choice. Spatial measures are more important than valence issues in explaining vote choice, however, in contrast with recent studies from Britain, Canada and the USA. Explanations for these differences are speculative, but may relate to Australia's stable party and electoral system, including compulsory voting and the frequency of elections. The consequently high information burden faced by Australian voters may lead to a greater reliance on spatial heuristics than is found elsewhere.Early theories of electoral behaviour relied on spatial explanations, with voters placing themselves at different positions on the ideological spectrum and choosing a party that occupies a position closest to them. This approach, associated with the work of Downs (1957), has dominated electoral research for more than half a century.