New Attempts to Reduce Overreporting of Voter Turnout and Their Effects

Zeglovits, Eva; Kritzinger, Sylvia

doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt010

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general though, social desirability biases and errors usually make respondents claim to be more participatory and engaged than they actually are, with consistently higher numbers claiming to have voted in surveys than actually turned out (Karp andBrockington 2005, 2005;Zeglovits and Kritzinger 2013). This means that the size of the online-only vote could in reality be even larger than estimated here.…”

Section: Statistical Model and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 63%

Effects of the internet on participation: Study of a public policy referendum in Brazil

Spada

Mellon

Peixoto

et al. 2016

Journal of Information Technology & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

e Cidadã." 4 There are many definitions of what constitutes a participatory budgeting process. At an abstract level participatory budgeting is a democratic innovation that allows citizens to affect the formulation of a budget. Most participatory budgeting processes occur at the city level. They are based on repeated negotiations between the city government and the participants, combining elements of deliberative, participatory, and representative democracy. In order to give a more precise operational definition of this democratic innovation Sintomer et al. (Sintomer et al. 2013) include five additional criteria that distinguish participatory budgeting from other similar programs: (1) the financial and/or budgetary dimension must be discussed; (2) the city level must be involved, or a (decentralized) district with an elected body and some power over administration; (3) it has to be a repeated process (one meeting or one referendum on financial issues are not examples of participatory budgeting); (4) the program must include some form of public deliberation within the framework of specific meetings/forums (the opening of administrative meetings or classical representative instances to ''normal'' citizens are not participatory budgeting); (5) some accountability on the output is required. 5 See appendix 3 for full list of survey questions.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Model and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 63%

Effects of the internet on participation: Study of a public policy referendum in Brazil

Spada

Mellon

Peixoto

et al. 2016

Journal of Information Technology & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data aggregated across individuals cannot support ecological inferences about whether individual influenza sufferers are themselves less likely to vote. However, looking at actual turnout patterns avoids issues of social desirability bias in reported voting (Zeglovits & Kritzinger ), and the aggregated data appropriately follows the theory's implication that influenza‐like illnesses change behaviour not only of those infected, but of the broader community (caretakers and those who avoid external activities when infection risk is high).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influenza and Voter Turnout

Urbatsch

2016

Scand Pol Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disease makes performing civic obligations more difficult both for the afflicted and those around them. Elections held when infectious diseases are locally prevalent are therefore likely to see lower voter turnout than are those held in healthier times. This is especially notable given the strongly seasonal incidence of influenza, which coincides with election season in some countries. This article examines the relationship between regional turnout rates in Finland and the United States from 1995 to 2015 with measures of local influenza prevalence. In both countries, regression models suggest influenza outbreaks associate with lower voting rates. This may suggest another mechanism limiting the political representation of people and communities vulnerable to ill health.

show abstract

“…As with all previous surveys, FES 2017 overestimates voter turnout, but it does so rather less than before. Part of the explanation might be linked to the inclusion of face-saving response items in the standard turnout question (Zeglovits and Kritzinger 2014;Morin-Chassé et al 2017). The questionnaire combined the classical short preamble designed to address the problem of social desirability with innovative extra response categories.…”

Section: Data Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%