Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
Neste artigo investigamos os padrões de volatilidade eleitoral, em nível individual, nas eleições presidenciais de 2010 com o objetivo de explicar a mudança de intenção de votos antes do primeiro turno entre os candidatos José Serra, Marina Silva e Dilma Rousseff. Damos ênfase ao papel das percepções sobre corrupção e sobre o aborto para entendermos o resultado final do primeiro turno das eleições. Para tanto, utilizamos o Estudo de Painel Eleitoral Brasileiro (EPEB), que conta com três ondas de entrevistas com a mesma amostra probabilística de eleitores brasileiros, representativa nacionalmente, e que permite aferir como os eleitores mudaram de opinião durante a campanha eleitoral. Os resultados indicam que os escândalos de corrupção, mais do que a discussão sobre aborto, estimularam uma perda de votos em Dilma Rousseff.
Abstract:
In this paper we investigate the patterns of electoral volatility, at the individual level, in the 2010 Brazilian presidential elections. We explain variation in vote intention before the first round between candidates José Serra, Marina Silva, and Dilma Rousseff. A special emphasis is given to the effects of perceptions of corruption and abortion, two hot campaign issues, to explain the final result of the first round. The analysis is based on the first Brazilian Electoral Panel Study (BEPS), which has three waves of interviews with the same nationally representative sample, allowing for measures of how voters changed their minds during the electoral campaign. Results indicate that perceptions about corruption, primed by the eruption of corruption scandals, more than the debate on abortion, stimulated a loss of votes for Dilma Rousseff.
Keywords: electoral volatility; panel study; vote; presidential elections
Referências
ALVAREZ, R. M., & BREHM, J. “American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science, vol.39, n˚4, p.1055-1082, 1995.
AMES, A.; GARCIA-SANCHEZ, M.; SMITH, A.E. “Keeping Up with the Souzas: Social Influence and Electoral Change in a Weak Party System, Brazil 2002-2006.” Latin American Politics and Society, 2012.
AMES, A.; MACHADO, F.; RENNÓ, L. R. SAMUELS, D.; SMITH, A.E.; ZUCCO, C. The Brazilian Electoral Panel Studies (BEPS): Brazilian Public Opinion in the 2010 Presidential Elections. Technical Note No. IDB-TN-508, Inter-American Development Bank, Department of Research and Chief Economist, 2013.
BAKER, A.; AMES, B.; RENNÓ, L.R. “Social context and campaign volatility in new democracies: networks and neighborhoods in Brazil’s 2002 Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, 50, 2006.
BOHN, S. R. “Evangélicos no Brasil: perfil socioeconômico, afinidades ideológicas e determinantes do comportamento eleitoral.” Opinião Pública, vol.10, n˚2, p.288-338, 2004.
BOHN, S. R. “Contexto político-eleitoral, minorias religiosas e voto em pleitos presidenciais (2002-2006).” Opinião Pública, vol.13, n˚2, p.366-387, 2007.
BOHN, S. R “Social Policy And Vote In Brazil: Bolsa Família and the Shifts in Lula’s Electoral Base.” Latin American Research Review, vol.46, n˚1, p. 54-79, 2011.
CARREIRÃO, Y. S. A decisão de voto nas eleições presidenciais brasileiras. Florianópolis/Rio de Janeiro: Editora da UFSC/Editora da FGV, 2002.
BOHN, S. R.; BARBETTA, P. A. “A eleição presidencial de 2002: a decisão do voto na região da Grande São Paulo”. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 19 (56), p. 75-93, 2004.
BOHN, S. R; KINZO, M. D. “Partidos políticos, preferência partidária e decisão eleitoral no Brasil (1989/2002)”. Dados, 47 (1), p.131-168, 2004.
CERVELLINI, S.; GIANI, M.; PAVANELLI, P. “Economia, Religião e Voto: A Questão do Aborto na Eleição Presidencial de 2010.” IV Congresso Latino Americano da WAPOR. Belo Horizonte, Brasil, 2011.
CLARKE, H. D.; MCCUTHEON, A. L. “The Dynamics Of Party Identification Reconsidered.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 73, n˚ 4, p. 704-728, 2009.
CONNER, M. & ARMITAGE, C. J. Attitudinal Ambivalence. In: CRASNO, W. D. & PRISLIN, R. (eds.). Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York: Psycology Press, p. 261-288, 2008.
COX, G. Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
CRAIG, S. C.; KANE, J. G.; MARTINEZ, M.D. “Sometimes You Feel like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence about Abortion.” Political Psychology, vol. 23, n˚ 2, jun. 2002, p. 285-301, 2002.
CRAIG, S. C.; KANE, J. G.; MARTINEZ, M.D.; MARTINEZ, M.D.; KANE, J. G.; GAINOUS, J. “Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 58, n˚ 1, p. 5-17, 2005.
FOWLER, F. J. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995.
FELDMAN, S.; ZALLER, J. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 36, n˚ 1, p. 268-307, 1992.
GAINOUS, J.; CRAIG, S. C.; MARTINEZ, M.D. “Social Welfare Attitudes and Ambivalence about the Role of Government.” Politics & Policy, vol. 36, n˚ 6, p. 972-1004, 2008.
GAINOUS, J.; CRAIG, S. C.; MARTINEZ, M.D; MARTINEZ, M.D.; CRAIG, S. C. “The Multiple Causes of Citizen Ambivalence: Attitudes About Social Welfare Policy.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, vol.20, n˚ 3, 335-356, 2010.
GREENE, S. “The Structure of Partisan Attitudes: Reexamining Partisan Dimensionality and Ambivalence.” Political Psychology, 26, 5, p. 809-822, 2005.
GREENE, K. “Campaign Persuasion and Nascent Partisanship in Mexico’s New Democracy.” American Journal of Political Science, 55, 2, p.398-416, 2011.
HOCHSCHILD, J.L. What's Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
KEELE, L.; WOLAK, J. “Contextual Sources of Ambivalence.” Political Psychology, vol. 29, n˚ 5, p. 653-673, 2008.
LAVINE, H. “The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, n˚ 4, p. 915-929, 2001.
MAINWARING, S.; SCULLY, T. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.
MCGRAW, K. M.; HASECKE, E.; CONGER, K. “Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and Processes of Candidate Evaluation.” Political Psychology, vol. 24, n°3, p. 421-448, 2003.
MULLIGAN, K. Partisan Ambivalence, Split-Ticket Voting, and Divided Government.” Political Psychology, vol. 32, n° 3, 2011.
LÍCIO, E., RENNÓ, L.; CASTRO, H. “Bolsa Família e voto nas eleições presidenciais de 2006: em busca do elo perdido”. Opinião Pública, vol. 15, n°1, p. 31-54. 2009.
LUPIA, A. & MCCUBBINS, M. The Institutional Foundations of Political Competence: How Citizens Learn what they need to know. In: Lupia, A., MCCUBBINS, M., POPKIN, S. (eds.). Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
PAIVA, D.; TAROUCO, G. S. “Voto e identificação partidária: os partidos brasileiros e a preferência dos eleitores.” Opinião Pública, vol.17, n°2, p.426-451, 2011.
PEREIRA, C.; MUELLER, B. “Partidos fracos na arena eleitoral e partidos fortes na arena legislativa: a conexão eleitoral no Brasil.” Dados, vol.46, n˚4, p.735-771, 2003.
PERES, P.; RICCI, P.; RENNÓ, L. “A Variação da Volatilidade Eleitoral no Brasil: Um Teste com as Explicações Econômicas, Políticas e Sociais.” Latin American Research Review, vol.46, n°4, 2011.
RENNÓ, L. “Escândalos e Voto: as eleições presidenciais brasileiras de 2006.” Opinião Pública, vol.13, p.260 - 282, 2007.
RENNÓ, L. Corruption and Voting. In: POWER, T. J. and TAYLOR, M. (eds.). Corruption and Democracy in Brazil: The Struggle for Accountability. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011.
ROBERTS, K.; WIBBELS, E. “Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: A Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanations.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 93, n°3, p. 575-590, 1999.
RUDOLPH, T. J.; POPP, E. “An Information Processing Theory of Ambivalence.” Political Psychology, vol. 28, n˚ 5, p. 563-585, 2007.
THORNTON, J. R. “Ambivalent or Indifferent? Examining the Validity of an Objective Measure of Partisan Ambivalence.” Political Psychology, vol. 32, n˚ 5, 2011.
YOO, S. “Two Types of Neutrality: Ambivalence versus Indifference and Political Participation.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 72, n˚ 1, p. 163-177, 2010.
ZUCCO, C.; POWER, T. "Bolsa Família and the Shift in Lula's Electoral Base, 2002-2006." Latin American Research Review, 48, 2, p.3-24, 2013.
A Opinião Pública utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.
Downloads
