Necmettin MUTLU

44950

SEÇMEN DAVRANIŞI ARAŞTIRMALARINDA YENİ UFUKLAR VE 2023 GENEL SEÇİMİ; STRATEJİK SEÇMEN VERSUS SAMİMİ SEÇMEN

Siyasal sistemlerin ve seçim ekosisteminin sağlıklı işleyişi için oylama davranışının anlamlandırılması kaçınılmazdır. Bunun için seçmen davranışına etki eden faktörlerin birey ve sistem düzeyinde tespiti siyaset biliminin uzunca bir süredir tartışma konusudur. Bu çalışmada; hâkim seçmen davranışı araştırmalarından farklı olarak, Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sisteminde eş zamanlı yapılacak seçimde seçmenin göstereceği muhtemel çoğunlukçu ve çoğulcu eğilimlerin, stratejik ve samimi oylama çerçevesinde etkileneceği kabulünden yola çıkılarak yapılacak öngörülere odaklanılmıştır. Stratejik ve samimi seçmen davranışı üzerine yürütülen uluslararası yazındaki araştırmalar sistem ve seçmen düzeyinde önemli ipuçları verdiğinden çalışma alan yazınına dair içerik analizi ile sınırlandırılmıştır. Yürütülen analizde iki ana başlık belirlenmiş, stratejik seçmen ve samimi seçmen karşılaştırmaları ve farklı oylama sistemlerinde yapılan araştırmalar incelenmiştir. Bu doğrultuda parlamento ve başkanlık için oy verme davranışı korelasyonları, sistem değişikliği sonrası kurulan siyasi partiler ve kararsız seçmenler üzerine ilgili yazında varılan sonuçlara odaklanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sisteminde yapılacak milletvekilliği genel seçimi ve cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimini etkilemesi muhtemel faktörler seçim ittifakı, seçim barajı, stratejik- samimi seçmen özellikleri ile seçim sistemi ile olan ilişkisi bağlamında tartışılmıştır. Yeni sistemde seçmen davranışına dair ana akım varsayımların değişeceği ve yeni araştırma modellerinin tasarlanması gerektiği değerlendirilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Stratejik Oy Verme, Samimi Oy Verme, Oylama Sistemleri, Oylama Davranışı, Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi.

NEW HORIZONS IN VOTER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH AND 2023 GENERAL ELECTION; STRATEGIC VOTER VERSUS SINCERE VOTER

For the healthy functioning of the electoral ecosystem, the voting behavior should be made sense. For this reason, the determination of the factors affecting voter behavior at the level of the individual and the system has been a matter of debate in political science for a long time. In this study; Unlike the dominant voter behavior studies in Turkey, In the presidential government system, in the elections to be held simultaneously in 2023, to the voters, the focus is on the predictions that will be made with the assumption that it will be affected by strategic and sincere voting. Since the researches in the international literature give important clues at the system and voter level, the study is limited to the content analysis of the literature. In the analysis, the comparisons of strategic voters and sincere voters and research on voting systems were examined under two main headings. As a result, the presidential government system is discussed in the context of the relationship between electoral alliance, electoral threshold, strategic and sincere voter characteristics and the electoral system. It was evaluated that in the new system, the mainstream assumptions about voter behavior would change and new research models should be designed.
Keywords:

Strategic Voting, Sincere Voting, Voting Systems, Voting Behavior, Presidential Government System.,

PDF

___

  • Abramson, P, R., Aldrich J,H., Diskin, A., Houck, A,M, Levine, R. & Scotto, T.J., (2018). The effect of national and constituency expectations on tactical voting in the british general election of 2010. Stephenson Laura B. et al. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 32, 28-61.
  • Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Blais, A., Diamond, M., Diskin, A., Indridason, I. H., Lee, D. J., & Levine, R. (2010). Comparing strategic voting under FPTP and PR. Comparative Political Studies, 43(1), 66, 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009341717
  • Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P. & Rohde, D. W. (1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. The American Political Science Review, 86(1), 59, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964015
  • Bargsted, M. A. & Kedar, O. (2009). Coalition-Targeted duvergerian voting: how expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 313, 307–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548120
  • Bassi, A. (2008). Voting systems and strategic manipulation: an experimental study. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14, 1-35.
  • Battaglini, M., Morton, R. B. & Palfrey, T. R. (2010). The Swing voter’s curse in the laboratory. The Review of Economic Studies, 77(1),78, 61–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40587621
  • Blais, A. & Carty, R. K. (1991). The Psychological ımpact of electoral laws: measuring duverger’s elusive factor. British Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 90, 79–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/193756
  • Blais, A. & Stephenson, B.(2018).Strategic voting and political ınstitutions. Stephenson Laura B. et al. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 14, 1-28.
  • Blais, A. & Degan, A. (2017). The empirical study of strategic voting. Actualıte Economıque, 93(1-2), 59,47-78.
  • Blais, A., Erisen, C. & Rheault, L. (2014). Strategic voting and coordination problems in proportional systems: An experimental study. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 393, 386–397. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24371802
  • Blais, A., Lachat, R., Hino, A. & Doray-Demers, P. (2011). The Mechanical and psychological effects of electoral systems: a quasi-experimental study. Comparative Political Studies, 44(12), 1605, 1599–1621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407472
  • Blais, A., Young, R. & Turcotte, M. (2005). Direct or indirect? Assessing two approaches to the measurement of strategic voting. Electoral Studies, 165, 163-176.
  • Blais, A., Loewen, P., Rubenson, D., Stephenson, Laura B. & Gidengil E. (2018). Information on party strength and strategic voting: evidence of non-effects from a randomized experiment. Stephenson Laura B. et al. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 92, 89-104.
  • Bol, D., Blais, A. & Labbé St-Vincent, S. (2018). Which matters most: party strategic exit or voter strategic voting? A laboratory experiment. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(2), 235, 229-244.
  • Callander, S. (2007). Bandwagons ve momentum in sequential voting. The Review of Economic Studies , Jul., 2007, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), s.653.
  • Clark, W. R. & Golder, M. (2006). Rehabilitating duverger’s theory: testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39(6), 685, 679–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005278420
  • Coate, S. & Conlin, M. (2004). A group rule: utilitarian approach to voter turnout: theory and evidence. The American Economic Review, 94(5), 1487, 1476–1504. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592831
  • Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count : Strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Cambridge University Press.Accessed March 26, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central.
  • Daoust, J. F. (2018). Support for minority government and strategic voting. Stephenson Laura B. et al. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 75-89.
  • De Mesquita, E. B. (2000). Strategic and nonpolicy voting: A coalitional analysis of Israeli electoral reform. Comparative Politics, 33(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/422424
  • Degan, A. & Li, M., Psychologically-based voting with uncertainty. CESifo Working Paper, 5014. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2512801
  • Degan, A. & Merlo, A. (2009). Do voters vote ideologically. Journal Of Economic Theory. 144, 1868–1894.
  • Dumitrescu, D & Blais, A. 2014. Anxiety and vote decision making in winner-take-all elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 47: 3: 451-474.
  • Duverger, M. (1974). Political parties. Bilgi Publishing.
  • Evans, G., Curtice, J. & Norris, P. (1998). New labour, new tactical voting? The causes and consequences of tactical voting in the 1997 general election. British Elections & Parties Review, 8(1), 65-79.
  • Feddersen Timothy, J. (2004). Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18 (1): 99-112.
  • Fisher, S. D. (2004). Definition and measurement of tactical voting: The role of rational choice. British Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 152–166. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4092405
  • Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41(4), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914083
  • Lago, I. (2018). Strategic voting in changing times: The 2016 election in Spain. Stephenson Laura B. vd. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 61-75.
  • Lebon, I., Baujard, A., Gavrel, F., Igersheim, H. & Laslier, J. F. (2018). Sincere voting, strategic voting: A laboratory experiment using alternative proportional systems. Stephenson Laura B. vd. (Ed). The many faces of strategic voting and political ınstitutions, 203-233.
  • Meffert, M. F. & Gschwend, T. (2011). Polls, coalition signals and strategic voting: an experimental investigation of perceptions and effects. European Journal of Political Research, 50(5), 636-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1475-6765.2010.01986.x
  • Neumann, N. E. (1998). Discovering the spiral of silence. Dost Publishing House. Ninjbat, U. (2018). A mıssing proof of The Gibbard-Satterthwaıte theorem. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 59(1), 1–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44711483
  • Plescia, C. (2016). Split-Ticket voting in mixed-member electoral systems: A theoretical and methodological ınvestigation. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of Dublin Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin.
  • Riker, W. H. & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A Theory of the Calculus of voting. The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953324
  • Sen, A. (1971). Review of theory of voting, The Economic Journal, 81(324), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230373 Van der Straeten, K., Laslier, J.-F., Sauger, N., ve Blais, A. (2010). Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election eules: An experimental study. Social Choice and Welfare, 35(3), 435–472.
  • Resmi Gazete. (2022, Aralık). Milletvekili Seçimi Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun. Kanun No. 7393 https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/04/20220406-1.htm#:~:text=MADDE%209%2D%20298%20say%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20Kanunun,oy%20kullanma%20hakk%C4%B1ndan%20yoksun%20b%C4%B1rak%C4%B1lamaz.
  • Resmi Gazete. ( 2022, Aralık) . Milletvekili Seçim Kanunu. Kanun No: 2839. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2839.pdf
  • Resmi Gazete. ( 2022, Aralık ). Seçimlerin Temel Hükümleri ve Seçmen Kütükleri Hakkında Kanun. Kanun No: 298 https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.pdf
  • Resmi Gazete. (2022, Aralık). Cumhurbaşkanı Seçim Kanunu. Kanun No:6271. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=6271&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5 Harvard Üniversitesi Veri Tabanı. (2022, Kasım). Seçimsel Demokrasi Araştırması, https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/MEDW
  • 2023 a https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/1542793/2023-643.pdf
  • 2023 b https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/genelge/dosya/77668/2018CBMV-Genelge136.pdf
İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2021
  • Yayıncı: Medya Okuryazarlığı Derneği
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

INSTAGRAM’IN EVLİ ÇİFTLERİN AİLE YAŞANTISINA ETKİLERİ

Buse ALKAN

TEKNOLOJİK CİHAZ KULLANIMININ DÖNÜŞMESİYLE OLUŞAN PLAGOMANİ HASTALIĞI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Onur DOĞAN, Ayten ÖVÜR

2022 YILINDAKİ KORONAVİRÜS (COVİD-19) HABERLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI SÖYLEM ANALİZİ

Betül SABAHÇI

SOSYAL TİCARETTE DENEYİMLEYİCİLERİN GÜVENİLİRLİĞİNİN SATIN ALMA POTANSİYELİNE ETKİSİ

İrem ENGİNAY

SEÇMEN DAVRANIŞI ARAŞTIRMALARINDA YENİ UFUKLAR VE 2023 GENEL SEÇİMİ; STRATEJİK SEÇMEN VERSUS SAMİMİ SEÇMEN

Necmettin MUTLU