IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i4p1311-1329.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Begin Again: Election Campaign and Own Opinions Among First‐Time Voters in Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Sergiu Gherghina
  • Elena Rusu

Abstract

Objective This article analyzes under what circumstances first‐time voters are likely to be influenced by the election campaign or by their opinion prior to campaign in their vote choice. Methods It uses individual‐level data from an original online survey conducted among Romanian first‐time voters in the November 2019 presidential election. Results The results indicate that those who trust politicians, find the campaign informative and use social media are influenced by election campaign. Those with higher political knowledge and interest follow their precampaign attitudes in casting the vote. Conclusion The study reveals the existence of distinct causal mechanisms for young voters who are influenced at the polls by the election campaign or by their own attitude prior to campaign. This indicates the necessity to include the existence of an opinion prior to campaign in future analytical frameworks about voting behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergiu Gherghina & Elena Rusu, 2021. "Begin Again: Election Campaign and Own Opinions Among First‐Time Voters in Romania," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1311-1329, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1311-1329
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12979
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banducci, Susan A. & Karp, Jeffrey A., 2003. "How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 443-467, July.
    2. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    3. Petrarca, Constanza Sanhueza & Giebler, Heiko & Weßels, Bernhard, 2022. "Support for insider parties: The role of political trust in a longitudinal-comparative perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(2), pages 329-341.
    4. D. Sunshine Hillygus & Simon Jackman, 2003. "Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 583-596, October.
    5. Richard R. Lau & David J. Andersen & David P. Redlawsk, 2008. "An Exploration of Correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(2), pages 395-411, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    2. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Meredith, Marc & Malhotra, Neil, 2008. "Can October Surprise? A Natural Experiment Assessing Late Campaign Effects," Research Papers 2002, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    6. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:863-880 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    9. Heberer, Thomas, 2006. "Institutional change and legitimacy via Urban elections? People's awareness of elections and participation in Urban neighbourhoods (Shequ)," Working Papers on East Asian Studies 68/2006, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies IN-EAST.
    10. Jerome, Bruno & Jerome, Veronique & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 1999. "Polls fail in France: forecasts of the 1997 legislative election1," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 163-174, April.
    11. Stephan J. Goetz & Meri Davlasheridze & Yicheol Han & David A. Fleming-Muñoz, 2019. "Explaining the 2016 Vote for President Trump across U.S. Counties," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 703-722, December.
    12. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    13. Temporão, Mickael & Dufresne, Yannick & Savoie, Justin & Linden, Clifton van der, 2019. "Crowdsourcing the vote: New horizons in citizen forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-10.
    14. A. Kamakura, Wagner & Afonso Mazzon, Jose & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2006. "Modeling voter choice to predict the final outcome of two-stage elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 689-706.
    15. Bernardo S. Da Silveira & João M. P. De Mello, 2011. "Campaign Advertising and Election Outcomes: Quasi-natural Experiment Evidence from Gubernatorial Elections in Brazil," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 590-612.
    16. Elena Costas-Pérez, 2014. "Political corruption and voter turnout: mobilization or disaffection?," Working Papers 2014/27, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    17. Andrew Gelman & Jessica Hullman & Christopher Wlezien & George Elliott Morris, 2020. "Information, incentives, and goals in election forecasts," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 863-880, September.
    18. Christine Fauvelle-Aymar & Abel François, 2003. "Campagne électorale, préférences politiques et participation. Une étude empirique sur les élections législatives françaises de 1997," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques j04009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    19. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2005. "Stichprobenverzerrung durch Item-Nonresponse in der international vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 05-43, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    20. Marcelo Tyszler & Arthur Schram, 2016. "Information and strategic voting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 360-381, June.
    21. Abu, Christian Ukeame, 2022. "Political Campaign and Human Rights Violation in Rivers State, Nigeria, 2013-2021," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(12), pages 536-543, December.
    22. Strömberg, David, 2002. "Optimal Campaigning in Presidential Elections: The Probability of Being Florida," CEPR Discussion Papers 3372, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1311-1329. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.