Comportamento Eleitoral
Aula 11
Ciencia Politica
CGAE
Kurt von Mettenheim
Topics
1) Behavioral Revolution in political science
2) Frequencies & Typology of Mass Belief
Systems
3) Correlations & Issue Voting
4) Regressions & Causal Modeling
5) “The Brazilian Voter” + 15(!) years
6) Brazilian Democracy: Critical Elections,
Party Realignments, Supercoalitions
1) Revolução Behavioralista
Versus Freudian Psychology
* “comportamento observado”
* questionário
Versus Sociologia Demográfico e dados
agregados desde Durkheim:
Census  Comparison
Para Linz = “Falha Ecológica”  precisa
focalizar o indivíduo
History of Public Opinion Studies
• 1930s-40s Laswell & Chicago School
(problem = fascism/communism & propoganda)
• 1950s Stauffer “Communism & Civil Rights”
(problem = Senador McCarthy & CPI anticommunist)
MARCO de Método e Teoria:
P. Converse: “Mass Belief Systems”
2) “Mass Belief Systems”
P. Converse, 1964
Tipologia de Conceitualizações da Política
Tipo
% 1958
% 1964
--------------------------------------------------------Ideologue
5
8
Near-Ideologue
8
12
Group Interest
20
23
Nature of Times
40
40
No Content
27
27
3) Issue Voting
Range & Constraint of Mass Belief
System
Range: Number of Beliefs
Y
Privatizar?
Mais Policia?
Reforma Politica?
Aumentar Imposto?
BACEN Autonomo?
N
NA
Constraint
If YES Privatize, then NO Tax Increase =
CORRELATION
If YES BACEN Autonomo, then YES
Privatize…
4) Regressions & Causal Modeling
Theory:
ECON  Vote
Test Theory? Variável = PIB,
IPCA?,
Gini Coefficient?
Parsimony vs Causal Weight
a
Party ID b
f
ECON g Candidate h Vote
e
c
Ideology
d
Aumentar Explicação ...
1) Vote = e + econ
2) Vote = e + (g x h) + (a x b) + (c x d) +
(c x e x h) + (a x f x h)
1) R2 = 2.0
2) R2 = 9.0
Causal Models
Long-Term
Short-Term
-----------------------------------------------------Demography
Political
Political
-----------------------------------------------------Income
 Econ
Age

Party ID
Region
 Policies
Race

Pol. Soc.
Gender
 Candidate
Education
Vote
5) The Brazilian Voter
Eleições de 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986
Identificou a organização RÁPIDA da
Opinião Pública Brasileira
vs 1970 Brazil (Eleição em Regime Militar!)
vs 1950s EUA (despolitizado: 1960s muda)
Tipologia de Conceitualizações da
Politica
Tipo
EUA
BRAZIL
------------------------------------------------------------Ideologue
8
2
Near-Ideologue
12
3
Group Interest
23
4
Nature of Times
40
45
No Content
27
45
Tipo
BRAZIL
--------------------------------------------------------Personalist
23
Immediate
32
Problem: “Master Coding” of Open Question
Content? Via: Corr?
Issue? Ed?
The Brazilian Voter cont.
Chapter 6 = Party Identification in 1982
Rsq = 0.85 – 0.95 !!!!
3 Teorias sobre como se forma
“IDENTIFICAÇÃO PARTIDÁRIA”
1) Political Socialization  PID
2) Civil Society  PID
3) Elections  PID
(Weber/Keys/Burnham: Plebiscitary
Vote & Political Machines)
The Brazilian Voter cont.
Chapter 7 = Issue Voting (lembra 2o marco
metodológico… correlações)
Rsq = 0.24
SE = Local < & National >
NE / Rural = Local > & National <
The Brazilian Voter cont.
Chapter 8 : Accountability
* Old, Contested Concept in Political
Theory (para cima, horizontal, ? )
* New Concept: Causal Logic of Public
Opinion
PIB/Employment  Vote pro-contra GOV
Q: Individual (US) vs Society (FR/Brazil)
Q: Executive? Leg? Fed/State/Mun?
The Brazilian Voter cont.
Chapter 9 Participation
W. Gallie: “Essentially Contested Concepts”
Outro marco metodológico: Análise Fatorial
(1=mídia, 2=sociedade civil, 3= processo eleitoral em si)
Como se cria, qual é o impacto de PARTICIPAÇÃO?
Corporativismo: hierarquias
Sociedade Civil: mobilização de baixo
Política Partidária-Eleitoral: “Nível de Análise>”
The Brazilian Voter cont.
Value of Democracy
* Psychology: “Cognitive Dissonance”
Vote  Believe (Rustow, Luxemburg)
* Tolerance: Petition/Strike/Occupy
Building
* Q Method: Factor Analysis:
Actions/Beliefs
6) New Concepts for Brazilian
Democracy
1) 1994 = Critical Election (Eleição Crítica)
US = 1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1964
2) Toucan & PT Supercoalitions (Presidencialismo de
Coalizão)
3) Multi-Party Realignment (Realinhamento
Partidário)
National  Local Change
Separation of powers
Presidential & federal institutions
Classics: Max Weber & V.O. Key
US Political Development
"That the plebiscitary 'machine' has developed so early in America is
due to the fact that there, and there alone, the executive -- this is
what mattered -- the chief office of patronage, was a president
elected by plebiscite." (Weber, 1946, p. 108).
Critical Elections and Realignment
“in which voters are … unusually deeply concerned, in which the extent
of electoral involvement is relatively quite high, and in which the
decisive results of the voting reveal a sharp alteration of the preexisting cleavage within the electorate. Moreover, and perhaps this
is the truly differentiating characteristic of this election, the
realignment made manifest in such elections seems to persist for
several succeeding elections.” (Key, 1955, p. 4)
Example: 1932
Key focuses on the persistence of votes shifting to
democrats in New England in 1924 and 1928
thereafter,
Followers focus on 1932 as the critical election: one
with (just under) a 20 percent drop for republicans
and (just under) a 20 percent increase for
democrats:
Democrats
Republicans
Progressives
1912
27.4
41.8
1916
46.1
49.2
1920
34.1
60.3
16.6
1924
28.8
54.0
1928
40.8
58.2
1932
57.4
39.6
1936
60.8
36.5
1940
54.7
44.7
1944
53.4
45.9
Critical Elections in US History
1) Jacksonian democrats (1828 election),
2) Republican ascendancy after civil war and the
end of slavery (1860 election)
3) The rise of corporate capitalism and republican
defeat of populism (1896 election),
4) The depression and New Deal (1932 election),
5) Decline of the democratic south as either a
1948+ secular realignment or a critical election
in 1964 or 1994.
1994 = Critical Election
Presidential Vote by Party, 1945-2006
PSD/PTB
UDN
Other
million voters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1945
54.1
33.9
9.6
6.0
1950
46.6
28.4
20.6
8.2
1955
33.8
28.6
32.2
9.0
1960
28.5
41.7
16.3
12.5
PSDB
PT
Other
1989
10.7
16.0
73.3
82.0
1994
54.2
27.0
18.8
94.7
1998
53.0
31.7
15.3
106.1
2002
33.3
52.8
13.9
115.2
2006
41.6
48.6
9.8
125.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1989-2006 data report first round voting. Values = percent valid votes.
Critical Election  Realignment
PT + PSDB Share of Presidential and Legislative Votes, 1982-2006
100
80
President
60
Federal
Chamber
State
Assemblies
40
20
0
1982
1986
1989/1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Presidential Critical Election 
Congressional Realignment
1945
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
PSD
42.6
30.5
21.6
18.0
15.0
Arena
50.5
48.4
40.9
40.0
PSDB
PTB
10.1
18.6
14.6
14.4
11.6
MDB
28.4
21.3
37.8
39.3
PT
3.5
6.9
10.2
13.1
13.2
18.4
UDN allied
26.5 0.0
19.2 22.9
13.3 25.2
12.9 32.6
10.8 39.7
Blank/Null
21.0
30.3
21.3
20.7
PMDB PFL
43.0
47.8 17.7
19.3 12.4
20.3 12.8
15.2 17.3
13.4 18.4
other
17.2
21.7
18.5
12.6
4.9
PDS
43.2
7.9
8.9
9.2
11.3
7.8
1982
1986
1990 8.7
1994 14.0
1998 17.5
2002 14.3
2006
Source: Supreme Electoral Court and Iuperj
other
12.3
19.7
40.5
40.6
25.5
27.7
Prefeituras por partido, 1982-2004
1982
1985
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
PSDB PT
0.1
0.5
0.4 0.9
6.7 1.1
17.1 2.0
17.8 3.4
15.7 7.9
PMDB PFL
34.9
63.2 12.4
37.5 24.7
33.7 20.3
24.1 17.4
22.6 18.5
19.1 14.2
PDS*
64.3
10.9
10.4
7.6
11.6
11.1
9.9
other
0.7
13.0
6.1
20.6
28.8
26.6
33.0
Municipalities
3941
201**
4287
4762
5378
5559
5560
“Supercoalitions”
Social Security Reform
(6 August 2003)
Government
Coalition
Y/N&Absent
Opposition
Y/N&Absent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33/36
PFL
80/13
PT
29/30
PSDB
45/22
PMDB
3/6
Minor Parties
39/11
PTB
Opposition Total 65/72
31/17
PP
37/2
PL
TOTAL YES = 358
61/12
Minor Parties
TOTAL NO&Ab = 154
293/76
Total Coalition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Federal Chamber
Supercoalition Votes:
Tax Reform
9 Sept 2003
Government
Coalition
Y/N&Absent
PT
87/5
PMDB
70/7
PTB
43/10
PP
35/14
PL
38/1
Minor Parties
63/8
Total Coalition
336/43
Source: Federal Chamber
Opposition
PFL
PSDB
Minor Parties
Opposition Total
Y/N&Absent
15/54
24/31
3/2
42/87
TOTAL YES = 378
TOTAL NO&Abs = 134
Total Vote by Party
Mayoral Elections, 1996-2004
1996
2000
2004
1994-00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PT
7,893,509
11,938,734
16,314,314
51.2
PSDB
13,065,103
13,518,346
15,726,415
3.4
PMDB
12,716,976
13,257,675
14,231,192
4.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PFL
10,072,522
12,973,437
11,253,898
28.8
PDT
6,956,642
5,611,888
5,576,508
-19.3
PP
9,776,752
6,812,742
6,092,683
-30.3
PTB
4,354,264
5,804,047
5,257,528
33.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PL
1,971,267
2,541,572
5,040,885
28.9
PPS
496,150
3,509,922
4,984,431
607.4
PSB
2,816,484
3,861,987
4,465,048
37.1
PCdoB
191,175
382,827
887,478
100.2
Other
3,801,025
4,307,056
5,317,244
13.3
Total
74,111,896
84,520,333
95,111,624
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Superior Electoral Court, available at www.tse.gov.br
2000-04
36.6
16.3
5.3
-13.2
-0.6
-10.5
-9.4
98.3
40.9
15.6
131.8
23.4
Number of Mayors
By Party, 1988-2004
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PT
38
54
110
187
411
PSDB
18
317
921
990
870
PMDB
1606
1605
1295
1257
1054
PFL
1058
965
934
1028
790
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Supreme Electoral Court
Mayorships, 1996-2004
Total Number of Mayorships by Party , 1996-2004
Year
Percent Change
1996
2000
2004
1996-2000 2000-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PT
110
187
411
70.0
119.8
PSDB
921
990
870
7.5
-12.1
PMDB
1,295
1,257
1,054
-2.9
-16.1
PFL
934
1,028
790
10.1
-23.2
PDT
436
288
304
-33.9
5.6
PP
625
618
552
-1.1
-10.7
PTB
382
398
423
4.2
6.3
PL
222
234
380
5.4
62.4
PPS
33
166
306
403.0
84.3
PSB
150
133
175
-11.3
31.6
PC do B
0
1
10
100.0
900.0
Other
270
259
275
-4.1
6.2
Total
5,378
5,559
5,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Superior Electoral Court. Available at www.tse.gov.br
From 2004 to 2006
PT Supercoalition, Lula 2nd Term 2006-2010
PSDB Opposition SP Gov Alckimin,
MG Gov Neves?
PMDB: Machine Bases
PFL: Regional & Machine Bases
Minor Parties: PL, PDT, PP, PTB, PPS, PSB
7) Political Scenarios for
2006 Elections and 2007-2010 Coalition Government
in Brazil
Material prepared for consultancy
Kurt von Mettenheim
GLG & FGV-EAESP
21 June 2006
Political Scenarios
Scenarios turn on October 2006 Elections:
Most likely scenario = President Lula
reelected and PT Coalition Government
formed 2007-2010.
Next most likely scenario = PSDB candidate
Alkimin elected and PSDB-PFL coalition
government formed.
Voter Preference, 2005-2006
2006
2005
--------------------------------- -----------------------------21/2 17/3 7/4
12/7 21/10 14/12 2/2
6/1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40
42
43
36
30
33
36
38
Lula, PT
20
23
17
20
22
17
16
15
Alckmin, PSDB
15
12
11
13
14
13
12
Garotinho, PMDB 13
11
10
9
10
11
14
11
12
5
5
7
7
8
10
8
8
10
8
12
12
15
15
16
14
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
other
undecided
null/blank
Voter Preference, by Gender,
Education, Income
Gender
Education*
Income*
-----------------------------------------------------------Men Women
0-6
7-12 12+ <=5 5-10 10+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lula, PT
46
34
43
38
27
42
35
23
Alkimin, PSDB
21
18
16
21
32
17
28
40
Garotinho, PMDB 13
16
16
16
6
16
12
4
Other/None/
18
32
25
25
35
25
15
33
Undecided/Null
Total
100 100
100 100 100 100 100 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
*Education = years schooling
**Income = multiple of minimum salary (R$350.00)
Voter Preference, 2nd Round
(if no candidate> 50% valid votes, held four
weeks after 1st Round)
2005
2006
------------------------------------------ -----------------------------16/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 14/12 2/2
21/2 17/3 7/4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lula, PT
54
49
45
45
41
48
53
50
52
Alckmin, PSDB
28
33
35
37
40
39
35
38
37
undecided
null/blank/none
4
3
4
5
6
4
3
3
3
14
15
15
13
14
9
9
9
8
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
Rejection Levels of Major
Candidates
21/2
17/3
7/4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Garotinho, PMDB 37
39
32
Lula, PT
30
33
29
Alckmin, PSDB 15
16
17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
Corruption in Lula´s Government?
2004 2005
2006
------ --------------------------------- --------------------1/3 1/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 2/2 21/2 7/4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes
32
65
78
83
81
82
77
79
No
42
21
12
10
10
9
14
11
Don´t Know 26
15
10
7
9
9
10
10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
Voter Perceptions of Congress
2003 2004 2005
2006
------ ------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------15/12 17/12 1/6
16/6 21/7 10/8 21/10 2/2
17/3 7/4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bad/Terrible 22
28
36
42
46
48
46
33
41
47
OK
46
45
42
38
36
35
35
43
37
34
Good/Great 24
17
15
15
11
12
12
16
14
13
Don´t Know 8
9
7
5
7
5
7
8
8
6
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: DataFolha, 9 April 2006, p. A4
Explore Electoral Behavior
www.marketingpolitico.com.br
www.apsanet.org Browse “PROceedings”
electoral behavior sections