evaluation of parties and coalitions with regard to party manifestos
Post on 23-Jan-2016
23 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE1
Evaluation of parties and coalitions with regard to party manifestos
Andranik TangianHans-Böckler Foundation D-40476 Düsseldorf University of Karlsruhe D-76128
andranik-tangian@boeckler.de
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE2
Agenda
1 Introduction
2 Model for elections 2005
3 Evaluation of parties
4 Evaluation of coalitions
5 Summary
6 Extension of the model to elections 2009
7 Mathematical annex
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE3
1.1 Introduction: Bundestagswahl 2005
% Votes
SPD (social democrats) 34.2
CDU/CSU (conservators) 35.2
Green (ecologists) 8.1
FDP (neoliberals) 9.8
Left-Party (left social democrats & communists)
8.7
19 minor parties 4.0
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE4
1.2 Introduction: Data (2005 on party manifestos)
Opinions of parties and unions Weighting
SPD CDU Green FDP Left-Party
Unions Expert Google
Relax the protection against dismissals
No Yes No Yes No No 5 25300
Sector-dependent minimal wages
Yes No Yes No No Yes 4 367
Statutory minimal wage
Yes No Yes No Yes Yes 3 32500
Combined wages No Yes No No No No 3 54000
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE5
1.3 Introduction: Methodology
Data like for the Wahl-O-Matrepresentation of programs by Yes/No answers
Task is different Wahl-O-Mat: fit single voters to parties
Our model: fit parties to the electorate
Method: indicators of popularity and universality
Goal of the paperto evaluateve leading parties and coalitions
2.1 Model: Representativeness
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE7
2.2 Model: Indicators
Popularity: % of the electorate represented, averaged on 95 questions spatial aspect of representativeness
Universality: frequency of representing a majority temporal aspect of representativeness
3.1 Evaluation of parties: Indices
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE9
3.4 Evaluation of parties: Implications
SPD is the most popular and universal party in spite of shortage of votes
High representativeness of trade unions no interrogation of public opinion
Weighting plays a negligible role henceforth, only unweighted indicators
are considered
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE10
4.1 Evaluation of coalitions: Definitions
Unanimity of a coalition is the weight of questions with unanimous opinions of coalition members
Proportionality of impact to weight on non-unanimous questions, the impact of
coalition fractions (probability that the opinion is decisive) is proportional to their size
total uncertainty (equal chances of alternative opinions)
both factors are considered with weights p and (1 - p), 0 ≤ p ≤ 1
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE11
4.2 Evaluation of coalitions: Definitions (continued)
Popularity of coalition is its expected representativeness
Universality of a coalition is ist expected rounded representativeness
Accuracy of prediction of the indicators is the standard deviation of representativeness and of rounded representativeness
4.3 Evaluation of coalitions: Indices
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE13
4.4 Evaluation of coalitions: Principal component analysis
Principal components
First axis
Second axis
Third axis
Popularity 0.0568 -0.2327 -0.9709
Universality 0.2677 -0.9333 0.2394
Unanimity 0.9618 0.2735 -0.0093
Std deviation of w.r.t. axes
24.9417 8.3166 3.3827
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE14
4.5 Evaluation of coalitions: Implications
Coalition SPD/CDU (now in power) has high popularity but low unanimity and mediocre universality
Coalition SPD/Green/Left-Party (much discussed but not realized) has higher unanimity, lower popularity but much higher universality
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE15
4.6 Evaluation of coalitions: Implications (continued)
Coalition CDU/FDP (held before the elections) has a higher unanimity but low indices of popularity and universality
Coalition SPD/Green/Left-Party (failed due to personal conicts between party leaders) might be the best alternative
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE16
5 Summary
The indices of popularity and universality are derived from votes and party manifestos for parties, their coalitions, and trade unions
The SPD was the most representative party, although it was not the election winner
A better alternative to the actual coalition CDU/SPD: SPD/ Green/Left-Party
Simple computing algorithms
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE17
6.1 Remake for elections 2009(Matthias Hölzlein)
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE18
The SPD is the most popular party (65%)
FDP the is most universal
The CDU/CSU as the strongest party in parliament has only mediocre indicators
Contradiction to the shares of votes received: Electors, seem to pay more attention to the traditional image of parties rather than to what they vote for
6.2 Evaluation of the remake 2009
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE19
6.3 Electorate profile for 32 Wal-o-mat questions
Survey data on balance of opinions on each question:
Opinion polls like of the Politbarometer by institutes Wahlen or Forsa
6 of 38 Wal-o-mat questions 2009 are not covered by the polls and are omitted
A few questions from the retained ones are matched to survey questions
Equal weighting of questions
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE20
6.4 Model 2009 for directly estimated electorate profiles
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE21
Under the direct method, the three left/ socialist parties are most popular and universal. The Left-Party is the strongest. The two governing parties CDU/CSU and FDP have the lowest indicators
Electors vote for the parties with whom they disagree on most of issues:
Irrational behavior of the electorate?
Left-Parties are considered populist rather than reliable for government work?
6.5 Evaluation 2009 for directly estimated electorate
profiles
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE22
7.1 Mathematical annex Notation
dichotomous questions
{ } weights of (probabilitymeasure)
candidates for election (parties)
{ }, 1, matrix of candidate opinions
{ } candidate weights (probability votes received)
{ }
q
qc qc
c
q
q
q
c
b b
a
μ
B
ξ
a B
. element-by-element product of vectors
balance of opinions in the society
1 abs(sign ) vector of indicators of tie opinions
a b
ξ
aa
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE23
7.2 Mathematical annex Definitions (parties)
Representativeness:
0 5
weight of protagonists if 1
weight of antagonists if 1
P popularity of
U round[ ] universality ofqc
qc
qcqc
c q qcq
c q q qcq r q
br
b
r c
r c
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE24
7.3 Mathematical annex Theorem 1 (indices of parties)
Analogy with force vectors in physics:
The most popular (universal) candidate has the largest projection of his opinion vector bc on the µ-weighted social vector of balance of opinions, respectively, of majority opinion
1 1{P } ( . )
2 21 1 1
{U } ( sign )2 2 2
c
c '
μ a B
μ μ a Ba
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE25
7.4 Mathematical annex Definitions (coalitions)
coalition (subset of candidates)
member weights
{ } matrix of member opinions
balance of coalition opinions
C Cc
ccc C
C
qc
C C C C
q
C
c C
b c C
b
ξ
B
b Bξ
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE26
7.5 Mathematical annex Theorem 2.1 (on coalitions)
sign is the number of members
P P , U P weighted member indicators
C C
q cqc C
C C
C c c C c cc C c C
s n b n
s
where
Unanimity of 1
1P P (1 )( ) .
2
1U U (1 )( sign )
2
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
p
p '
μs
μ a s b
μ a s b
23.07.2010Andranik Tangian. 10th Meeting of Society for SCW, Moscow, HSE27
7.6 Mathematical annex Theorem 2.2 (on coalitions)
If the coalition opinions on non-unanimous questions are independent (= independent negotiations on every question) then
2 2 2
2 2 2
1V . 1
4
1Vround[ ] sign . 14
C C
C
C C
C
r p
r p
'
'
μ a s b
μ a s b
top related