Swedish Voting Behavior
Sören Holmberg & Henrik Oscarsson
Göteborg
●
Swedish Election Studies Program
Department of Political Science
Göteborg University
February 2004
The Swedish Election Studies Program
The results presented in the following set of figures and tables stem from the Swedish
Election Studies Program. The Program was initiated by Jörgen Westerståhl and Bo Särlvik
in the mid 1950s, shortly after the Michigan Election Studies Project began. The first studies
were done in conjunction with the local elections in 1954 and the parliamentary election in
1956.
In all parliamentary elections since 1956 – including the ATP-referendum in 1957, the
Nuclear Power-referendum in 1980, the EU-referendum in 1994, the Euro-referendum in
2003 and the European Parliament elections in 1995, 1999 and 2004 – a large
representative sample of eligible voters has been interviewed. The basic design in the latest
studies has been a rolling panel in which half of the sample has been interviewed in
connection with the previous election, and the other half in connection with the succeeding
election. In recent years the sample size has been approximately 3 500 and the response
rate 75 to 80 per cent.
The early Election Studies were directed by Jörgen Westerståhl (1954–1956), Bo Särlvik
(1954–1973) and Olof Petersson (1973–1976). The most recent studies have been directed
by Sören Holmberg (1979–2004), Henrik Oscarsson (2002 – 2004)
and Mikael Gilljam
(1985–1994). The latest publication from the program is Väljare (Voters) written by Sören
Holmberg and Henrik Oscarsson.
Turnout in Swedish Riksdag Elections (per cent)
per cent
100
90
85,9
82,7
80
75,4
71,9
68,6
70
79,8
83,9
79,1
90,8 91,8
89,3
91,4
86,7
90,7
88,3
89,9
86,0
86,8
81,4 80,1
77,4
70,3
60 54,2
50
67,4
53,0
40
30
20
10
0
28 32
76 79
79 82 85 88 91 94 98
98 02
21 24 28
32 36 40 44 48 52
52 56
56 58
58 60 64 68 70 73 76
2
Comment: The results show turnout among registered voters (= Swedish citizens of voting age; since 1976 18 years and
older).
Swedish Election Results 1976-2002 (per cent)
Party
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
v
s
c
fp
m
kd
mp
nyd
minor parties
4,8
42,7
24,1
11,1
15,6
1,4
0,3
5,6
43,2
18,1
10,6
20,3
1,4
0,8
5,6
45,6
15,5
5,9
23,6
1,9
1,6
0,3
5,4
44,7
10,1
14,2
21,3
2,3
1,5
0,5
5,9
43,2
11,3
12,2
18,3
2,9
5,5
0,7
4,5
37,7
8,5
9,1
21,9
7,2
3,4
6,7
1,0
6,2
45,2
7,7
7,2
22,4
4,1
5,0
1,2
1,0
12,0
36,4
5,1
4,7
22,9
11,8
4,5
2,6
8,4
39,9
6,2
13,4
15,3
9,1
4,6
3,1
100,0
91,8
100,0
90,7
100,0
91,4
100,0
89,9
100,0
86,0
100,0
86,7
100,0
86,8
100,0
81,4
100,0
80,1
total
turnout
Comment: Parliamentary elections only. The initials for the parties are the customary ones in Sweden: v = Left Party, s =
Social Democratic, c = Center, fp = Liberal, m = Conservative, kd = Christian Democrat, mp = Green, and nyd = New
Democrats.
Party Switchers in Swedish Elections 1960-2002 (per cent)
per cent
35
30,0
30
30,7
31,8
29,2
25
19,5
19,1
20
18,1
19,2
20,2
16,0 16,0
15
12,8
13,7
11,4
10
5
0
1956
1960 1960
1964 1964
1968
1960 1964 1968
1968
1970
1970
1970 1976
1973 1979
1976 1982
1979 1985
19821988
19851991
19881994
1991
1973
19981994
1973 1976 1979 1982
1985 1988 1991 1994 1998
1998
2002
Comment: At every election, the results show the proportion party switchers among voters participating in that and the
immediately preceeding election. Results for the years 1960-1968 and 1973 are based entirely on recall data while
results for 1970 and for the years 1976-1998 are based in part on data from panel studies.
Ticket Splitting in Swedish Elections 1970-2002 (per cent)
per cent
ticket splitters in
parliamentary and
local elections
26
24
30
25
22
20
16
21
21
17
19
19
17
15
9
10
9
10
11
11
ticket splitters in
parliamentary and
regional elections
12
6
5
4
5
6
7
8
0
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
Comment: The percentage base is defined as voters participating in parliamentary and local elections (kommun) and
in parliamentary and regional elections (landsting), respectively.
Party Switchers during Election Campaigns 1956-2002 (per cent)
per cent
25
20
18,1
19,1
16,3
13,6
15
12,1
10,9
9,5
10
8,4
7,7
5,5
13,2
9,6
6,3
5,1
5
0
1956
1960
1964
1968
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
Comment: The results are based on panel data consisting of party preference data from pre-election face-to-face
interviews and information about party choice in post-election mail questionnaires. No election campaign panel
study was performed in 1970. The number of respondents vary around 1000.
Time of Vote Choice 1964-2002 (per cent)
per cent
party choice decided
during the campaign
60
51
50
40
39
40
1985
07-jun
1988
1988
57
57
1998
1998
2002
2002
49
33
30
23
20
26
27
28
1973
1973
1976
1976
29
18
10
0
1964
1964
1968
1968
1970
1970
1979
1979
1982
1982
1991
1991
1994
1994
Comment: The results are based on a question with the following wording: ”When did you decide which party to vote for
in the election this year? Was it during the last week before the election, earlier during autumn or summer or did you
know all along how you were going to vote?” The two first response alternatives have been combined into ”during the
campaign” category. Non-voters are not included in the analysis.
Degree of Party Identification 1956–2002. Percentage of Eligible Swedish Voters
Who Consider Themselves Identifiers or Strong Identifiers of a Party (per cent)
per cent
70
65
64
60
60
61
59
60
53
50
51
53
47
Identifiers
42
47
45
40
48
40
39
30
33
32
34
36
34
30
28
24
20
24
19
18
Strong Identifiers
10
0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Comment: The interview question was somewhat differently phrased in the years 1956-1964.
Subjective Party Identifiers 1968–2002 among Sympathizers of Different Swedish
Parties (per cent)
per cent
90
80
s
70
m
60
50
c
fp
77
71
60
57
76
76
59
56
78
78
77
77
69
69
62
53
68
54
51
62
57
60
62
57
54
69
68
58
56
63
54
46
40
40
53
51
50
51
57
56
s-sympathizers
m-sympathizers
c-sympathizers
46
44
36
30
50
62
39
30
36
fp-sympathizers
32
20
10
0
1968
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
Comment: Persons who consider themselves identifiers of a party have been defined as subjective identifiers.
The results for v-, kd- and mp-sympathizers in 2002 are 44, 37 and 19 per cent subjective identifiers, respectively.
Distrust in Parties and Politicians. Proportion of Interviewed Persons Who
Answered Agree (=Distrust) on Two Negatively Phrased Trust Items (per cent)
per cent
80
70
60
51
50
58
52
48
68
62
64
1991
1994
59
38
34
40
28
30
20
10
0
1968
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1998
2002
Political Distrust and Gender (per cent)
per cent
80
66
70
59
60
51
50
39
40
30
49
51
women
31
62
62
62
66
60
58
57
51
46
34
34
54
69
37
men
20
25
10
0
1968
Difference
men – women -6
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
±0
-2
±0
-3
-3
-1
0
+4
-3
-2
women
men
Political Interest. Proportion of Interviewed Persons Who Indicate That They
Are Very Much Interested or Rather Interested in Politics (per cent)
per cent
70
60
50
50
44
44
56
52
48
54
53
52
50
54
58
56
54
40
30
20
10
0
1960 1964 1968 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Political Interest and Gender (per cent)
70
60
57
59
62
64
58
61
59
54
63
58
56
50
48
40
42
39
30
32
34
46
46
49
45
59
59
52
51
60
48
45
38
20
10
0
1960 1964 1968 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Difference
men – women +25 +20
+20 +20
+20 +16
+15 +13
+13 +11 +10
+11
+8
+12
men
women
Political Interest and Political Partisanship 1968 – 2002 (per cent)
per cent
45
39
40
35
30
partisans
habituals
36
29
21
32
30
31
31
27
24
22
22
23
apathetics
14
36
30
15
10
34
25
25
20
34
36
16
23
22
24
24
20
19
17
27
28
21
30
21
28
26
28
30
independents
apathetics
30
partisans
26
23
21
18
16
16
14
habituals
14
14
1998
2002
independents
5
0
1968
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
Comment: Partisans have a party identification (=strong or weak) and are interested in politics. Independents are
interested in politics but have no party identification. Habituals have a party identification but lack interest in politics.
Apathetics have neither a party identification nor interest in politics. The topology was devised by Allen Barton
(1955) and applied to Sweden by Olof Petersson (1977).
Election Issues in Sweden 1979-2002. Percentage of Party Voters Who
on an Open-Ended Question Mentioned the Various Issue Areas as
Important for Their Party Choice (per cent)
Issue Area
Welfare Policies
Full Employment
Environment
Taxes
Economy
Wage Earners’ Funds
Public vs Private Sector
EU
Immigration/Refugees
Education
Housing
Agriculture
Energy/Nuclear Power
Religion/Moral
Gender Equality
1979
17
18
6
17
9
4
5
0
0
6
5
1
26
2
1
1982
28
29
7
8
14
33
2
0
0
3
2
1
2
1
0
1985
44
25
22
20
14
11
7
0
1
3
2
2
1
1
0
1988
40
5
46
19
8
1
3
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
0
1991
60
23
25
18
20
1
4
10
8
4
5
3
3
3
0
1994
43
41
20
9
30
0
4
14
5
6
1
1
2
1
2
1998
60
34
12
17
14
0
3
6
3
20
0
1
3
2
2
2002
60
7
8
14
10
0
1
5
10
29
2
2
1
2
3
Percentage of voters
who mentioned at least
one issue
62
76
78
72
82
79
77
73
Average Left-Right Self Placements among Swedish Voters 1979-2002 (means)
far to
the left
1979
v
s
2,0
3,4
•
•
•
1982
m
5,5
5,9
7,3
•
•
•
•
•
•
1988
c
fp
4,8
•
•
1985
mp
kd
• • •
•
•
•
•
1991
•
•
1994
•
• •
•
••
•
•
1998
2002
•
2,3
v
•
•
••
•
• •
•
• ••
• •
•
3,2 3,7
5,8
mp s
c
far to
the right
•
••
•
••
•
6,4
•
•
6,8
fp kd
•
7,4
m
Comment: The left-right scale runs from 0 (far left) to 10 (far right) with a designated midpoint a 5 (neither left
nor right). The mean for the entire electorate was 4.9 in 1979, 5.0 in 1982, 5,2 in 1985, 5.0 in 1988,5.5 in 1991,
4.9 in 1994, 5.1 in 1998 and 4,9 in 2002. The mean for the nyd-voters was 6.3 in 1991 and 6.1 in 1994.
Ideological Left-Right Voting in Swedish Elections 1956-2002 (mean etas)
mean etas
70
.66
.62
.58
60
.53
50
.40
40
.49
.47
.60
.59
.59
.54
.53
.50
.45
.37
30
20
10
0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Comment: The results are mean etas based on analyses of variance treating party voting groups (5 to
8 parties) as the independent variable and three left-right issue questions with the strongest
relationship with party choice as the dependent variables. The left-right issue questions are not
exactly the same throughout the years.
Party Profiles 1982 – 2002. Per cent Respondents Who Mentioned
at Least One Election Issue for the Relevant Party (per cent)
party
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
v
s
c
fp
m
kd
mp
nyd
48
88
58
45
68
58
64
46
62
70
29
47
59
54
59
54
25
60
42
54
67
58
52
59
52
83
47
46
66
49
71
38
63
78
34
43
72
61
55
49
61
35
68
70
54
51
-
mean five old parties
61
50
59
58
57
51
59
58
55
80
60
54
mean seven parties
Comment: Post-election data only. The results are based on open-ended interview questions, one per party.
Retrospective Evaluations of the Development of the Swedish Economy
and the Respondents Personal Economy
per cent
per cent
90
80
Respondents Personal Economy
70
40
worse
38
31
36
38
50
37
29
10
27
21
better
22
25
22
16
better
31
22
worse
0
40
49
worse
worse
39
36
30
20
10
0
1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
75
59
60
30
20
Swedish Economy
70
60
50
86
90
80
25
better
12
5
24
better
4
11
1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Comment: The interview question on the Swedish economy was not put in 1982. The time frame for the evaluations
was ”the two-three latest years” in the Election Studies in 1982-1994. In 1998 the time frame was changed to ”the last
twelve months”. The interview questions also included a middle response alternative (”about the same”). The per cent
calculations include don’t know-answers comprising between 0-2 per cent for the question on personal economy and
between 3-8 per cent for the question on the Swedish economy.
Party Leader Popularity 1979 – 2002 (mean)
mean
40
Lars
1979
Werner 1991
34
34
37
Gudrun 1994
Schyman 2002
34
31
32
36
35
v-sympathizers
30
20
11
10
7
4
7
5
4
all
0
0
-10
-1
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Olof 1979
Palme 1985
Ingvar 1988
Carlsson 1994
Göran 1998
Persson 2002
mean
40
35
35
36
35
30
30
33
31
s-sympathizers
23
20
all
18
10
9
12
12
11
15
0
16
2
-10
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Torbjörn 1979 Olof
1988 Lennart
Maud 2002
Fälldin 1985 Johansson 1994 Daléus 1998 Olofsson
mean
40
31
33
30
30
24
20
10
33
27
27
11
1
3
1
5
5
33 c-sympathizers
8
1
0
-10
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
all
Ola
1979 Bengt
1985
Ullsten 1982 Westerberg 1994
Lars
1998
Leijonborg 2002
mean
39
40
34
33
30
34
29
22
19
20
28
fp-sympathizers
20
12
11
13
7
10
6
all
0
-1
-10
-2
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Alf Svensson 1985-2002
mean
42
39
40
38
34
39
39
12
10
kd-sympathizers
30
20
11
10
all
2
0
0
-5
-10
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Gösta
Ulf
1982 Carl 1988 Bo 2002
Bohman 1979 Adelsohn 1985 Bildt 1998 Lundgren
mean
41
40
37
38
37
38
39
29
30
22
20
10
13
5
6
7
3
5
0
-10
-6
m-sympathizers
-6
all
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Comment: Party Leader popularity has been measured on an eleven point like-dislike
Scale running between –5 and +5. The results are means multiplied by 10 to yield values
between –50 (dislike) and +50 (like).
Party Leaders as Potential Vote-Getters for Their Parties (per cent)
party
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
v
s
c
fp
m
kd
mp
nyd
15
11
10
22
26
-
18
16
20
8
14
-
26
13
13
27
18
7
-
22
14
14
18
7
-
26
9
6
18
18
13
3
20
13
7
10
17
28
18
6
8
19
6
12
4
33
25
6
-
23
11
21
6
4
32
14
-
mean five old parties
17
15
19
15
15
15
15
13
-
-
-
-
13
14
15
16
mean seven parties
Comment: Party and party leader popularity have been measured on the same eleven point like-dislike scale.
The results show per cent respondents among a party’s sympathizers who like the party leader better than
the party.
Candidate Recognition. Proportion of Respondents Who Can Name at
Least One Riksdag Candidate in Their Own Constituency (per cent)
per cent
70
60
60
50
60
55
56
49
40
48
44
45
44
40
30
20
10
0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1973
1985 1991 1994 1998 2002
Comment: Only voters are included. The data is collected after the elections. In the years 1964 – 1994, the
correctness of names given was not checked systematically. Minor tests indicate that the results for the
years 1964 – 1994 should be scaled down 5 – 8 percentage points if one wants to estimate the proportion
of voters who mention correct candidate names. A check in 1998 and 2002 showed that the proportion of
party voters who could mention at least one correct name was 32 and 30 per cent respectively.
Class Voting in Swedish Elections 1956-2002. Percentage Voting
Socialist among Workers and in the Middle Class (per cent)
90
80
73
79
working class
75
72
66
70
70
65
67
70
69
70
66
67
66
38
39
57
60
50
40
30
22
26
32
29
30
31
28
31
35
35
41
37
32
middle class
20
10
0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1998 2002
Class
Voting
Index
51
53
46
40
36
42
34
36
35
34
29
25
29
29
27
Comment: The Class Voting Index (Alford’s index) is defined as the percentage voting socialist (v or s)
among workers minus the percentage voting socialist in the middle class. The results have been
corrected for the oversampling of Social Democratic voters in the earlier election studies. The
percentage base is all party voters. Students are excluded from the analysis.
Sector Voting in Swedish Elections 1976 – 2002. Percentage Voting
Socialist among Voters in the Public and the Private Sector (per cent)
per cent
public sector
70
61
60
50
52
48
47
54
52
46
46
50
53
50
56
45
40
48
47
47
private sector 43
35
30
20
10
0
1976
Sector
Voting
Index
2
1979
1982
1985
5
8
6
1988
2
1991
1994
1998
2002
10
14
6
13
Comment: The Sector Voting Index is modelled after Alfrod’s Class Voting Index and show the
percentage voting socialist (v or s) in the public sector minus the percentage voting socialist in the
private sector. Public-Private sector is determined by an inteview question asking voters to indicate
which sector they belong to. The analysis only includes gainfully employed people.
.07
.07
Age (7-cat)
Sex (2-cat)
.
.09
.09
.09
.
.20
.19
.27
.
.
.55
60
.
.12
.07
.08
.22
.16
.18
.29
.
.34
.
.47
64
.
.08
.06
.08
.23
.12
.
.23
.
.25
.
.41
68
.
.12
.08
.07
.
.12
.
.25
.
.26
.
.39
70
.
.06
.09
.09
.
.11
.
.27
.
.23
.
.44
73
.05
.05
.07
.07
.13
.16
.25
.22
.20
.17
.39
76
.10
.09
.10
.12
.
.16
.17
.25
.24
.23
.18
.42
79
.17
.09
.10
.06
.
.14
.19
.27
.21
.27
.16
.39
82
.15
.10
.08
.08
.27
.13
.20
.23
.20
.23
.15
.35
85
.11
.09
.08
.08
.25
.14
.20
.25
.20
.25
.11
.33
88
.17
.12
.09
.08
.24
.12
.18
.24
.17
.21
.09
.28
91
.15
.13
.09
.08
.22
.13
.15
.22
.20
.22
.16
.32
94
.11
.14
.10
.09
.17
.13
.14
.21
.18
.18
.14
.31
98
.15
.10
.11
.11
.19
.15
.15
.20
.19
.19
.17
.28
02
-.006
-.014
-.015
-.018
-.029
-.032
-.055
b*10
-.028
-.068
-.075
.
-.144
-.159
-.276
b*50
+.10 +.021
.
+.03 +.009 +.043
+.04 +.006 +.032
+.03 +.002 +.012
+.02 +.001 +.007
-.05
-.10
-.08
-.03
-.15
-.13
-.25
Diff
56-02
Comment: The b-values refer to the linear trend over time. B*10 express the average change in correlations in ten years. B*50 express the average change in correlations
during a 50-year period. The categories used are: Age (18-21, 22-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+), Sex (Male, Female), Education (Low, Intermediate, High) where the
category High is reserved for university degrees, Marital Status (Single, Living together, Married, Widow/Widower), Church Attendence (Once a Week, Once a Month, Once a
Year, Never), Occupation (Industrial Blue Collar, Blue Collar, Low White Collar, Intermediate White Collar, Higher White Collar, Private Enterprise, Farmers, Students), Class
(Working Class, Middle Class), Union Membership (Implemented, No-membership, LO, TCO, SACO, Employers’ Organisation, Other), Income (Five categories after
percentiles 15-20-30-20-15, Rural-Urban (Countryside, Small Town, Large Town, Stockholm/Göteborg/Malmö), Type of Residence (Rent, Home Owner), Sector (Public Sector,
Private Sector).
.
.08
Marital Status (4-cat)
Public-Private Sector (2-cat)
.17
Church Attendance (4-cat)
.
.25
Urban-Rural (4-cat)
Income (5-cat)
.28
.34
Union membership (5-cat)
Education (3-cat)
.30
Residence (2-cat)
.
.53
Class (2 cat)
Occupation (8-cat)
Year
56
Category
Social Categories × Party Choice in Sweden 1956-2002 (Cramer’s V)
Difference in Party Choice Between Women and Men 1948 – 2002
(percentage point difference)
party
48
52
56
60
64
68
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
98
v
+2
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+3
0
+1
+2
+1
–1
0
–2
–5
-3
s
+3
+2
+1
–2
+3
0
0
–1
+1
–1
–2
–5
–3
0
+3
+5
+3
c
+1
+4
+3
+1
+4
+3
+1
0
–2
–4
0
+1
+1
–2
–3
0
+1
fp
–4
–8
–3
–1
–4
–2
–2
–2
0
0
–2
–3
0
–2
–2
–2
0
m
–2
0
–2
0
–4
–2
0
0
+1
+4
+4
+7
+5
+5
+7
+7
+3
0
0
0
0
–1
–1
–1
–1
–2
–2
–1
–4
-2
–1
0
0
–3
–2
–2
-2
10
17
10
9
17
19
10
kd
mp
sum per cent
difference for
the five old
parties
12
16
10
6
16
8
5
6
4
10
02
Comment: A positive (+) difference means that the relevant party was more supported among men than among
women while a negative (-) difference indicate more support among women than among men.
In Which Age Group Does the Parties Have Their Strongest Support?
election year
1948
1956
1960
1964
1968
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1998
2002
party
v
young
old
old
no diff
young
young
young
young
young
young
young
middle age
young
young
young
s
c
fp
m
kd
mp
no diff
young
young
no diff
no diff
no diff
middle age
middle age
old
old
old
old
old
old
old
middle/old
old
old
old
middle age
middle age
young
young
young
old
old
old
old
old
old
old
old
young
old
old
no diff
young
old
old
young/old
young
no diff
no diff
young
young
no diff
young
young
old
no diff
old
old
old
old
old
middle age
middle age
middle age
young
young
young
old
young
no diff
old
old
old
no diff
old
old
young
middle age
young
young
young
young
Comment: Young is defined as 18 – 30 years, middle age as 31- 60 and old as 61 – 80. No diff means
there is no difference in party support across age groups.
The party has a good policy on issues that I think is important
The party has a good political ideology
Issue Voting
Ideological Voting
The party has competent persons that can run the country
The party has done a good job in politics in recent years
The party has a good party leader
I always vote for the party
The policies of the party is usually favourable to the occupational group to which I belong
Competence Voting
Retrospective Voting
Party Leader Voting
Habitual Voting
Group Interest Voting
The party has good Riksdag candidates on the ballot in my constituency
The party is a small party that risks falling under the four percent threshold to the Riksdag
Candidate Voting
Tactical Voting
21
21
27
23
30
33
41
Year
1988
9
16
18
21
20
31
32
41
1994
6
10
14
14
14
16
24
25
31
34
34
45
51
2002
3
8
2
7
15
10
23
25
22
37
36
46
60
2002
v
2
10
25
19
18
24
29
32
36
29
27
41
40
s
18
20
5
23
24
24
32
15
24
38
32
48
47
c
5
7
4
8
6
4
17
13
18
31
45
46
59
fp
2
8
17
11
14
20
9
16
35
36
36
46
53
m
8
15
5
16
11
7
41
34
32
38
36
54
66
kd
36
7
1
5
5
6
7
17
17
42
32
51
66
mp
of the most important reasons”, “fairly important reason”, “not particularly important reason” and ”not at all important reason”.
Comment: ”You say you are going to vote for […] in this year’s Riksdag election. How important are the following reasons for your choice of party?”. The alternatives were “one
The party is a big party and therefore it has greater possibilites than a smaller party to implement its policies
Instrumental Voting
Party Identification Voting I feel like a supporter of the party
The party has a good program for the future
Prospective Voting
Campaign Agenda Voting The party has good policies on many of the issues in recent public debates
Reason to Vote
Theoretical Explanation
Voters’ Self Reported Reasons for the Choice of Party. Percent saying ”One of the most important reasons” among All Voters in 1988,
1994 and 2002 and among Party Voters in 2002
Swedish Voting Behavior
Published by the Swedish Election Studies Program
Layout: Kerstin Gidsäter
ISBN 91-89246-03-9
Copies can be ordered from:
Swedish Election Studies Program
Department of Political Science
Göteborg University
Phone: + 46 31 773 1227
Fax: + 46 31 773 4599
e-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
www.pol.gu.se/sve/forsk/vod/vustart.htm
Adress: Sprängkullsgatan 19, P.O. Box 711
SE 405 30 Göteborg
Sweden
Swedish Election Studies Program
Department of Political Science
Göteborg University