Stigmatized Campaign Practices and the Gendered Dynamics of Electoral Viability

Abstract

What happens when a traditional source of political capital becomes a health hazard? Stigmatized electoral practices, such as vote buying, are a double-edged sword: While these strategies may signal candidates’ electoral strength, they may also entail reputational costs. In normal times, street campaigns are a non-stigmatized electoral practice. During the Covid-19 pandemic, however, they imposed health risks. Employing data from a national survey experiment conducted in Brazil prior to the 2020 municipal elections ( N = 2025), we extend research on the employment of stigmatized campaigns and the gendered dynamics of electoral viability. We find that voters evaluate candidates who engage in face-to-face activities as less electorally viable and report lower intent to support them. These dynamics do not impact all candidates equally: Voters more harshly punish women candidates who conduct street campaigns than men, leading women to lose the advantage they have over men when both employ non-stigmatized campaign practices.

Weapons of Clients: Why Do Voters Support Bad Patrons? Ethnographic Evidence from Rural Brazil

“…Public opinion data from national surveys in Brazil show widespread voter discontent with politicians. In a national online survey during the 2020 elections, almost 90 percent of voters believed that most politicians were not responsive to their needs (Borges Martins da Silva and Gatto 2021). With such a high level of distrust of all politicians, we should expect that there would be high levels of disengagement through protest voting.…”

“…Similarly, poor voters in the Sertão recast elite notions of political deservedness to promote the legitimacy of their requests for personal assistance from politicians. In this narrative, local politicians and brokers legitimize their claims for continuous access to the spoils of office on the basis of the idea that they have contributed to a politician’s gaining office (Borges Martins da Silva 2019, 129–33). Poor citizens adapted the elite language of political deservedness by expanding the notion of what counts as a contribution to include their individual votes.…”

“…Elite narratives of political deservedness are based on the idea that brokers and local politicians deserve to have their demands met by higher-ranking politicians because they contributed to getting a politician elected to office through financial donations or delivering many votes (Borges Martins da Silva 2019, 129–33). Some clients in the Sertão have reenacted this elite narrative by expanding the idea of what counts as a contribution to include their individual votes.…”