Welche Auswirkungen haben größere Wahlkreise auf das politische Verhalten? Ein empirischer Beitrag zur Wahlrechtsreform

Welche Veränderungen bringt eine Vergrößerung einzelner Wahlkreise für das Verhältnis von Wählenden und Gewählten mit sich? Der Bundestag wächst mit jeder Wahl weiter an, doch dem soll, unter anderem, durch die Arbeit der "Kommission zur Reform des Wahlrechts und zur Modernisierung der Parlamentsarbeit" entgegengewirkt werden. Eine der meistdiskutierten Empfehlungen zur Eindämmung der Bundestagsgröße ist die Verringerung der Anzahl der Wahlkreise. Jene Maßnahme wird jedoch oft kritisiert, da eine damit einhergehende Vergrößerung einzelner Wahlkreise nicht nur praktisch, sondern auch politisch zu weniger Nähe zwischen Abgeordneten und Bürger*innen führen könnte. Mithilfe von Daten akademischer Nachwahlstudien für alle Bundestagswahlen von 2002-2021 in Kombination mit Strukturdaten aller Wahlkreise des Bundeswahlleiters untersuchen wir, welche möglichen Konsequenzen es für Wähler*innen hätte, wenn die Anzahl der deutschen Bundestagswahlkreise von bisher 299 verkleinert würde. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass größere Wahlkreise weder hinsichtlich der Zunahme der Bevölkerung noch der Fläche des Wahlkreisgebietes mit geringerer Demokratiezufriedenheit oder Bürgerkompetenz ("political efficacy") von Wähler*innen in Deutschland einhergehen. Wenn also die Zusammenlegung von Wahlkreisen dazu beiträgt, die Größe des Bundestags zu verkleinern, so gibt es in Hinsicht auf die von uns untersuchten Faktoren keine erkennbaren Gründe seitens der Wählenden gegen eine jene Reform

Temporary Disenfranchisement: Negative Side Effects of Lowering the Voting Age

How does losing one’s right to vote again after having been eligible to vote before affect political fundamentals such as political efficacy? We draw attention to the hitherto neglected phenomenon “temporary disenfranchisement,” which, for instance, occurs regularly in states that extended the franchise to underage citizens in some but not all elections. If an election with voting age 16 is closely followed by an election with voting age 18, underage voters who are eligible for the former will have no right to vote in the latter. Using original panel data on young citizens in Germany and a differences-in-differences design, we find that temporary disenfranchisement results in a decrease in external efficacy, which remains even after regaining eligibility. Our findings highlight an important side effect of selective voting rights extensions and bear insights that are relevant to other cases of temporary disenfranchisement due to residential mobility, citizenship, or felony disenfranchisement

Temporary disenfranchisement: Negative side effects of lowering the voting age

How does losing one’s right to vote again after having been eligible to vote before affect political fundamentals such as political efficacy? We draw attention to the hitherto neglected phenomenon “temporary disenfranchisement,” which, for instance, occurs regularly in states that extended the franchise to underage citizens in some but not all elections. If an election with voting age 16 is closely followed by an election with voting age 18, underage voters who are eligible for the former will have no right to vote in the latter. Using original panel data on young citizens in Germany and a differences-in-differences design, we find that temporary disenfranchisement results in a decrease in external efficacy, which remains even after regaining eligibility. Our findings highlight an important side effect of selective voting rights extensions and bear insights that are relevant to other cases of temporary disenfranchisement due to residential mobility, citizenship, or felony disenfranchisement

From German Internet Panel to Mannheim Corona Study: Adaptable probability-based online panel infrastructures during the pandemic

The outbreak of COVID-19 has sparked a sudden demand for fast, frequent and accurate data on the societal impact of the pandemic. This demand has highlighted a divide in survey data collection: Most probability-based social surveys, which can deliver the necessary data quality to allow valid inference to the general population, are slow, infrequent and ill-equipped to survey people during a lockdown. Most non-probability online surveys, which can deliver large amounts of data fast, frequently and without interviewer contact, however, cannot provide the data quality needed for population inference. Well aware of this chasm in the data landscape, at the onset of the pandemic, we set up the Mannheim Corona Study (MCS), a rotating panel survey with daily data collection on the basis of the long-standing probability-based online panel infrastructure of the German Internet Panel (GIP). The MCS has provided academics and political decision makers with key information to understand the social and economic developments during the early phase of the pandemic. This paper describes the panel adaptation process, demonstrates the power of the MCS data on its own and when linked to other data sources, and evaluates the data quality achieved by the MCS fast-response methodology