Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Disertasi ini menguji dua tahap keputusan pemilih dalam situasi jual-beli suara, dengan kontrol diri inhibisi sebagai moderator antara jumlah uang dengan keputusan atas tawaran uang pada Tahap 1,dan kualitas personal calon sebagai moderator antara keputusan atas tawaran uang dengan keputusan memilih calon pada Tahap 2. Dengan metode population-based survey experimentsebagai studi utama,sebanyak 1.220 partisipan yang representatif terhadap pemilih di Indonesia dikelompokkan secara random ke dalam 4 jumlah tawaran uang: Rp50 ribu vs Rp100 ribu vs Rp150 ribu vs kontrol X 3 kualitas calon: lawan lebih baik dalam integritas vs lawan lebih mampu memimpin vs setara between-group design, dan diukur keputusannya pada Tahap 1 menolak atau menerima uang dan Tahap 2 keputusan memilih calon dengan pertanyaan hipotetikal jual-beli suara, serta skala kontrol diri inhibisi KDI . Hasil analisis binary logistic regression dengan mengontrol variabel demografi menunjukkan bahwa uang tidak secara langsung memengaruhi keputusan memilih calon. Pada Tahap 1, pengaruh jumlah tawaran uang terhadap keputusan untuk menerima menolak uang dimoderatori oleh KDI; individu dengan level KDI yang semakin tinggi cenderung tidak menerima uang, bahkan ketika jumlah uang yang ditawarkan lebih banyak. Pada Tahap 2, keputusan menolak uang pada Tahap 1 secara signifikan menurunkan peluang individu untuk memilih calon yang menawarkan uang. Efek penolakan uang pada Tahap 1 semakin kuat ketika kandidat lawan lebih berkualitas dalam kepemimpinan dan integritas. Partisipan yang menerima uang kemudian mendapat pertanyaan aktivasi norma resiprositas kebebasan untuk menguji efeknya terhadap pilihan, namun pengaruhnya tidak sesuai dengan prediksi. Norma resiprositas kebebasan tidak signifikan menaikkan menurunkan peluang individu untuk memilih calon yang melakukan jual-beli suara. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa uang yang telah diterima tidak memengaruhi pemilih untuk memilih calon yang telah memberi mereka uang.

---

This disertation examined how voters rsquo decision making in a two stage vote buying context. Inhibitory self control was included as a moderator between the amount of money offered and the decision over the money offered in Stage 1, and candidate rsquo s personal quality was included as a moderator between the decision over the money offered and vote decision in Stage 2. Data collection was conducted through a population based survey experiment of 1.220 participants which randomly selected from the population of Indonesian voters. Participants were randomly assigned into 4 amount of money offered Rp50k vs Rp100k vs Rp150k vs control X 3 candidate rsquo s personal quality competitor is better on leadership vs integrity vs equal between group design. Participants were then hypothetically asked about her his decision at Stage 1 reject or accept the money and Stage 2 which candidate to vote the vote buyer or the competitor . Participants rsquo inhibitory self control was measured using 5 point Likert type scale. A series of binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the amount of money was found significantly affect the decision to accept the money offered in Stage 1. Inhibitory self control was significantly moderated the effect of the amount of money on whether individuals would accept the money. Individuals with higher inhibitory self control were less likely to accept the money, even among those who were offered larger amount of money. The decision to reject moneyin Stage 1 lowered the probability to vote for vote buying candidate in Stage 2, and the effect was stronger in the condition when the competitor has a better quality on leadership or integrity. It was also found that the decision to accept money did not significantly affect voting decision. Additionally, neither activating reciprocity freedom nor reciprocity freedom norm significantly affected participants to vote for the vote buying competitor candidate.

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
The local head election in Indonesia suffers from vote buying. However, there is a lack of study compared to vote buying case in Indonesia, especially quantitative study. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap. The purpose is to estimate the effect of individual and community characteristics on the probability of voter to consider money or gifts in a local head election. This study uses the data from Indonesia Family Life Survey 5 (IFLS5) conducted in 2014/2015 for 29,788 respondents. As the response is a binary data, the Linear Probability Model (LPM) and logit model is utilized. The result shows that both individual and community characteristics affect vote buying in Indonesia. Voters with tertiary education are far less likely to consider money or gift by 29.1% than others. By using logit test, the coefficient is corrected. Voters with a university degree tend to not engage in vote buying by 0.27 times than the others. This study finds other interesting findings that gender matter in vote buying in Indonesia. Female voters tend to consider money or gift more than male by 2.44%. Voters who live in rural areas have a higher probability to consider vote buying by 4.55%. Living in the internet-connected community may reduce the probability of vote buying. The coefficient indicates that those with internet access have less probability to consider money or gift in an election by 1.35%. Living in a community with high social awareness makes voters less vulnerable to vote buying. The coefficient indicates that they have less possibility to consider money by 2.44% than those living in communities with less social awareness. Thus, the strategy to eliminate vote buying should be adjusted to the character of voters in a certain community.

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
How many voters sell their votes in Indonesia, and how effective is it? Elaborated from a wide range of survey methods -whether individual, observational, or derived from the list-experiment, the proportion of voters participating in vote-buying in the 2019 election was between 19,4% and 33,1%. This range is comparatively high by international standards, with Indonesia's level of vote buying being the third largest in the world. Given that the list-experiment and the straight-forward survey questions result inconsistent findings, it can be concluded that vote buying is less likely to be stigmatized, and such practice has become a new normal during the election. This study also finds that Indonesia's open-list proportional system shapes the supply-side of vote buying. Under such an electoral system, candidates are forced to compete against co-partisans for personal votes. And because, according to the open-list system, a seat (or seats) secured by a party must be allocated to that party's candidates who obtained the most individual votes, candidates only need to win a small slice of the votes to defeat their co-partisans. To do so, they need to differentiate themselves from their party peers, including by buying votes.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini ingin mencari tahu faktor apa yang membuat seorang pemilih memutuskan untuk memilih satu kandidat dan tidak memilih kandidat lainnya. Penelitian ini membahas pengaruh faktor sosiologis (agama, suku, jenis kelamin, keluarga dan peer group), faktor psikososial (orientasi isu, orientasi kandidat, identifikasi partai politik), pilihan rasional (prospectives voting, retrospectives voting) dan vote buying terhadap preferensi pemilih. Penelitian ini juga membahas faktor yang dominan di antara faktor-faktor tersebut dalam mempengaruhi preferensi pemilih. Dengan melakukan metode kuantitatif laboratory experimental, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa ada empat faktor dominan yang sangat mempengaruhi preferensi pemilih, yaitu: orientasi isu, orientasi kandidat, agama dan vote buying. Sehingga, dapat diinterpretasikan bahwa pemilih lebih rasional namun terjebak dalam pragmatisme politik yang muncul sebagai dampak dari kekecewaan dan rasa frustasi terhadap kinerja para elit politik.

---

ABSTRACT
This study examines why voters voted the way they did: what factors make a voter decides to choose one candidate over the others. This study analyzes the influence of sociological factors (religion, ethnicity, gender, family and peer group), psychosocial factors (issues orientation, candidates orientation, party identification), rational preferences factors (prospectives voting, retrospectives voting) and vote buying on voter preference. The study also determines the most dominant factor among these factors in influencing voter preference. Using quantitative laboratory experimental method, results show that there are four dominant factors that influence voter preference: issue orientation, candidate orientation, religion and vote buying. Thus, it can be interpretated that voters are more rational, but they are currently being trapped in a political pragmatism resulted from desperation and frustration toward political leaders’ performance, This study examines why voters voted the way they did: what factors make a voter decides to choose one candidate over the others. This study analyzes the influence of sociological factors (religion, ethnicity, gender, family and peer group), psychosocial factors (issues orientation, candidates orientation, party identification), rational preferences factors (prospectives voting, retrospectives voting) and vote buying on voter preference. The study also determines the most dominant factor among these factors in influencing voter preference. Using quantitative laboratory experimental method, results show that there are four dominant factors that influence voter preference: issue orientation, candidate orientation, religion and vote buying. Thus, it can be interpretated that voters are more rational, but they are currently being trapped in a political pragmatism resulted from desperation and frustration toward political leaders’ performance]

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
Money politics has posed a major challenge in Indonesian general election, which has not only dangerously polluted the election's integrity but also triggered the emergence of political corruption. There have been at least 13 corruption cases handled by KPK with correlation with the costs to win the election, including the practice of nomination buying and vote buying. This article examines the correlation between money politics and political corruption, and suggests the importance of political parties' reform as a necessary solution, particularly regarding the recruitment of election candidates, political party financing, and voter education. This agenda is important because the roots of nomination and vote buying mainly come from political parties's problems.