Probable causes of

choice of political
parties in Romania*
* Data gathered in December 2018
 • Purpose
this research aims to find out the causes for
respondents’ choice of certain political parties above
others in the political context at the end of 2018
analysis of possible outcomes in the 2019 European
elections
- this could be a tool in political science
 Literature
• Contemporary political science theories uses
behavioral science as a valuable tool in predicting
elections’ outcomes and patterns of trust in
political parties or agents
• With Brexit and the election of Trump, there is
widespread concern for understanding the
underlying causes for certain political choices,
including social and emotional/irrational causes
• There are findings that social networks can increase
polarization and promote patterns of ideas
 Expectations
• This research is expected to deliver the causes of certain
political choices among a sample group of students
within the University of Bucharest
• The concluding expectation is that there is a pattern of
thought in the choice of certain political parties, determined
by external events and opposing, negative and
polarizing concepts rather than positive results or
actions of political agents
Data collection
• University students (undergraduate,
graduate, PhD)
• 30 respondents
• Ages of 20-25 to 40-70
 Dependent Variable
• Two questions which sought to find the
causes for preferring a certain political
party and having disdain for another
political party
• “What is the main reason why you have
the highest level of trust in party X?”
• “What is the main reason why you have the
lowest level of trust in party X?”
 Independent Variable
• “Which one do you think is the most important area of public action?”
• “Which one do you think is the least important area of public action?”
• Choice between:
• Rule of law, democracy and fight against terrorism
• Economy and labor market
• Health System
• Education
• Human rights
• National Defense
• International Relations
 Model aimed at
• Disdain for PSD
• Seeing “non-stealing” as the most important criterion

Preference for USR

 Interpretation
• Probability model = disdain for PSD, disappointment
with the current status quo and being fed up with
corruption leads to interest in USR
• The probability of (A) and (B) happening increases the probability of (A) and (B)
happening together as a conjoined phenomenon = which turns (A) and (B)
together into a whole new (C)
• However, it is obvious that the probability of outcome (C) is dependent on
variables
• The more someone disliked PSD, theft and corruption, the more USR is probable to
be preferred, because they are not perceived as corrupt
Other
correlation
s
v
 Main Findings
 Most trusted political party: USR
 Second most trusted political parties: PNL and PSD (equality –
13.3%)
 However, most respondents trusted their political party of
choice, on a scale from 1 to 10, somewhere between 7-8. The
majority find themselves on a scale of 4-9.
 The vast majority chose their political party of preference because
“they seemed to be more capable” (36.6%) and lack of
corruption came in second (16.6%)
 • Corruption definitely is an important issue for the
respondents. The least trusted political party (73%)
is PSD, because of corruption (60%). Lack of
efficient measures came in second (10%).
• However, lack of corruption did not come in first as the
reason why the political party of their preference was
chosen.
• It seems that lack of corruption is important for the
respondents, but not the ultimate determining
factor of their political preference.
 The general picture that emerged is quite interesting:
being an open question, the respondents did not all
expressly say that they chose that party because “it
seemed more capable”, but they used expressions such
as “they seem to be doing something”, “they
seem better prepared”, “they have better
solutions”, “they have members who are better
educated”, “they seem ok”, which I synthetized in
“they seem to be more capable”, because all refer to the
capabilities of the members and most people used the
word “seemed”
 References
• Robert M. Bond,1 Christopher J. Fariss,1 Jason J. Jones,2 Adam D. I. Kramer,3 
Cameron Marlow,3Jaime E. Settle,1 and James H. Fowler 1,4 - A 61-million-person
experiment in social influence and political mobilization, PMC 2013 Nov 20.
• Richard R Lau Mona S Kleinberg Tessa M Ditonto, Measuring Voter Decision
Strategies in Political Behavior and Public Opinion Research, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Volume 82, Issue S1, 2018, Pages 911–936
On the Theory of Strategic Voting, David P. Myatt, The Review of Economic
Studies
Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 255-281