Ar galime prognozuoti Seimo rinkimus? : trijų kūnų problema Lietuvos politikoje

LTMonografijoje siekiama paaiškinti, kas lemia Seimo rinkimų rezultatą ir kodėl Lietuvoje dažnai nepasitvirtina rinkimų prognozes. Išskleidžiama trijų kūnų problema: rinkimų rezultatas randasi iš sąveikų tarp paklausos, pasiūlos ir rinkimų sistemos. Tekste remiamasi gausiais projekto „Lietuvos nacionalinė rinkiminė studija 2016“, ankstesnių apklausų apie rinkimus ir agreguotais rinkimų rezultatų duomenimis. Knyga skirta ne tik mokslininkams ir studentams, bet ir politikams, žurnalistams ir kiekvienam Lietuvos politika besidominčiam skaitytojui. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Seimas; Rinkimai; Rinkiminės kampanijos; Socialinis pasirinkimas; Socialinė psichologija; Seimas; Elections; Election campaigns; Social choice; Social Psychology.

ENRecent studies on the Lithuanian elections revealed trends of seemingly predictable voting behavior and increasing party system stabilization. However, the results of the 2016 parliamentary elections came as a surprise when the previously marginal Lithuanian Union of Farmers and Greens received 56 seats out of 141 (even though it nished second in the proportional tier of the mixed electoral system). is event, as well as the newly available data from the second Lithuanian National Election Study, prompted the need for further research. If the Lithuanian voters are predictable, why are the elections not? e aim of this book is to analyze the factors that determine (and help forecast) the results of the parliamentary elections in Lithuania: is it possible to understand the underlying logic of electoral surprises? eoretical framework puts emphasis on the interaction of three main bodies (groups of factors) that determine the electoral results: supply, demand and institutions. e empirical study employs a mixed methods approach, resting on the assumption that some research questions are better studied with quantitative (for example, the rival explanations of parties’ voter pro les) and others by qualitative (like the logic of responses to the corruption scandals) factors. Extensive data from two National Lithuanian Election Studies and other relevant surveys, as well as the o cial electoral data provided by the Central Electoral Commission (especially the chapters on the electoral system), were utilized in this study.e book consists of ten chapters. In the rst chapter, the signi cance of the 2016 parliamentary elections is discussed, and the theoretical framework is presented. e second chapter turns attention to the rst-in-line “usual suspect” for the unpredictability of elections: electoral volatility. Employing post-electoral surveys, this chapter explores why Lithuanians change their party preferences so o en and whether such a behavior may be explained by protest. e third chapter continues the quantitative research and analyzes cleavages in Lithuania, namely how they had changed between the 1992 and 2016 elections. e fourth chapter presents in-depth interviews of the voters and a qualitative analysis meant for examining the responses to political scandals. ey had been especially prominent before the 2016 elections and had contributed to the nal result: however, it is still little understood how voters reacted to them in Lithuania on the individual level. e h chapter returns to a quantitative analysis and the social bases of the main surprise of the 2016 elections – the Lithuanian Union of Farmers and Greens. What was the electoral formula of their success – their leaders, the demand-appealing ideological formula (social conservatism and le -wing economic policies) or a strict policy on alcohol? Chapter six turns to a qualitative study of the images of party leaders and the logics in assessing their (un)favorability as viewed by Lithuanian voters; the study builds upon the answers of voters to open-ended questions about the leaders.e subsequent three chapters focus on the e ects of the electoral system – the third body, which was quite neglected in the previous electoral research on Lithuanian elections. In the seventh chapter, the general e ects of Lithuanian mixed-parallel electoral system are analyzed. e eighth chapter strives to explain the results of the second round in the single-seat districts in 2012 and 2016 (when the parties, which were second according to the votes, had won) elections, employing the theory of proximity voting. e ninth chapter explores the logic of split-ticket voting in the Lithuanian electoral system: whether (and, if so, how) voting di ers in the single-member districts and the proportional tier of the elections. Chapter ten summarizes the main results and provides a discussion regarding their signi cance. Research in the book points to a three-body problem when trying to explain and forecast the Lithuanian elections. First, the demand is very unstable: more than a half of Lithuanians do not vote for the same party in two elections in a row, and the cleavage potential is not ful lled by parties. Second, the supply side is also ever-changing, with corruption scandals a ecting voters in di erent ways. Moreover, the winning formula of political leadership is focused on personal appeal (morality and determination traits in particular) and on an ability to respond to the voters’ elusive hopes for future change, which is in stark contrast to the classical political demands and orientations (a retrospective assessment of performance, political competence or ideology). ird, the predictability of the electoral results is further complicated by the third body, a mixed electoral system with unpredictable e ects. e book is concluded with a recommendation for an electoral system reform. [From the publication]

• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences
• Sociologija / Sociology