Screenshot of a journal article abstract from West European Politics, titled “Inclusive or exclusive? Candidate selection methods do not affect descriptive representation” by Michal Grahn and Sandra Håkansson from the Department of Government, Uppsala University, Sweden. The article is marked as open access and published by Routledge.
The abstract text is highlighted in yellow and states that while exclusive candidate selection methods (e.g., selection committees) are often thought to produce more descriptively representative outcomes than inclusive methods (e.g., primaries), such claims are usually based on cross-sectional comparisons. The authors conducted a conjoint experiment in Sweden involving 6,400 party members and 1,300 selection committee members, assessing preferences for candidate profiles based on gender, age, and immigrant background. The findings show that both groups exhibited similar preferences for underrepresented candidates across both selection modes. The study concludes that both inclusive and exclusive procedures can equally promote descriptive representation within supportive institutional contexts.
Below the abstract, the listed keywords are: Political recruitment; descriptive representation; political parties; primaries; conjoint experiment.
A dot plot titled "Candidate preferences among rank-and-file party members and SCMs, in primary and ballot creation contexts." The y-axis lists candidate characteristics: Gender (Men, Women), Immigrant background (No, Yes), Age (18–35, 36–64, 65+), Education (No higher education, University degree), and Employment sector (Public, Private). The x-axis represents marginal means, ranging from 0.4 to 0.55, with a vertical dashed reference line at 0.5.
For each characteristic, three groups are shown with their respective point estimates and 95% confidence intervals:
Red squares for “Party members, primary context”
Blue circles for “Selectors, primary context”
Green diamonds for “Selectors, ballot creation context”
The graph shows how different groups of selectors and party members vary in their marginal means when evaluating candidate characteristics. Confidence intervals are horizontal bars, and all estimates are clustered around the 0.5 mark, with some group differences, especially notable in age and education.
Below the figure, a note explains that the values represent marginal means with 95% confidence intervals, calculated separately for each group, with standard errors clustered at the respondent level.
Online first: "Inclusive or exclusive? Candidate selection methods do not affect descriptive representation" by @grahn.bsky.social & @sandrahkansson.bsky.social
doi.org/10.1080/0140...
#AcademicSky #Polisky
