The electoral effects of the descriptive representation of ethnic minority groups in Australia and the UK

Abstract

In this article we assess the electoral effects of the nomination of ethnic minority candidates. We argue that descriptive representation is an important factor in how parties in SMD systems establish their coalitions over multiple elections. We demonstrate this by showing that descriptive representation has a consistent effect on voting behavior, and thus that parties can rely on descriptive representation to win over specific segments of the voting population. Previous studies have been limited to single election years and single countries, but we collect original data from multiple election cycles in Australia and the UK to test our argument. We find that descriptive representation is consistently associated with a 10-percentage point bump in support from ethnic minority independents and Labour supporters. We conclude by highlighting the importance of this finding for party competition.

Friendly fire: Electoral discrimination and ethnic minority candidates

“…For example, Abosch et al (2007) conclude that these are clear evidence of block voting against Latino candidates in California, but Abrajano and Alvarez (2005) argue this is primarily the result of ideological perceptions, and, in fact, White voters do support some Latino candidates. Zingher and Farrer (2014) find no evidence White voters are less likely to support ethnic minority candidates in Australia, but do find discrimination in the United Kingdom. While Fisher et al (2015) report that British voters discriminate against Muslim candidates, they find no evidence of discrimination against other Black or Asian candidates.…”

“…Importantly, from a psychological perspective, staying home might be a lower bar than switching parties. This is a possible link to Zingher and Farrer’s (2014) finding of discrimination against ethnic minority candidates in the United Kingdom but not in Australia. They suggest the difference could be a product of Australia’s compulsory voting rules, which prevent voters from staying home as a form of discrimination.…”

“…Greenwald et al, 2009; Piston, 2010; Terkildsen, 1993), many studies examining real elections and whether ethnic minority candidates do worse than White candidates produce mixed or null findings (e.g. Black and Erickson, 2006; Fisher et al, 2015; Highton, 2004; Hood and Mckee, 2015; Zingher and Farrer, 2014). One reason for this is that negative attitudes towards minorities are concentrated on the right, while ethnic minority candidates tend to run for parties on the left, and therefore, little electoral discrimination actually occurs.…”

The more concentrated, the better represented? The geographical concentration of immigrants and their descriptive representation in the German mixed-member system

“…This literature suggests that disadvantaged immigrant groups tend to see their own social and economic disadvantages as linked to the disadvantages of immigrants more generally (Sanders et al, 2014). For this reason, most immigrant voters tend to vote for immigrant-origin candidates, irrespective of whether the candidate has a matching or different national background, because voters perceive immigrant-origin candidates to be more trustworthy than native candidates in representing the interests of immigrant groups (Bergh and Bjorklund, 2011; Teney et al, 2010; Zingher and Farrer, 2016). In addition, it can be argued that relying on the foreigner share should make for a tough test of our hypothesised link as it should bias the coefficient of the interaction term downward in case there was no voting link between voters and candidates of different immigrant origin.…”

Political Ideology Modifies the Effect of Glass Cliff Candidacies on Election Outcomes for Women in American State Legislative Races (2011–2016)

“…In election studies, explanations of political party behavior often assume strategic utilitarian aims, “rooted in the assumption that parties are motivated, at the very least in part, by the desire to maximize the party’s share of the vote” ( Zingher & Farrer, 2016 , p. 8). Although party affiliation remains the most salient cue used to infer voter preference, demographic cues, such as race, ethnicity, and gender, are also often used by voters to make political decisions ( Juenke & Shah, 2016 ).…”