[EAI 22nd General Election Conference] Did Voter Evaluations of Major Parties' Nomination Processes Influence Voting Choices?

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz2rrjjpfgI

Video Script

The Relationship Between Nomination Evaluation and Voting Choice

Yes, this is Professor Seo Hyun-jin from the Department of Social Education. I don't usually get very nervous when I give presentations, but I am extremely nervous today. It seems to be the first time in my life that I'm in such a confined space with such a diverse group of people. Therefore, I've been contemplating how to deliver this presentation. I will do my best. First, the part I was responsible for was nomination evaluation and voting choice. As the professor mentioned, we received the data on Wednesday and worked on it at home for four days: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I can't work as quickly as I used to because I'm getting older. So, we struggled to send it by Monday. The results we managed to obtain were about how voters perceived the nomination evaluations and whether they influenced voting choices, and I also tried to find some implications from my own perspective. The election was extremely heated. The general election voter turnout was the highest in 32 years, and both sides mobilized their supporters with slogans like 'judgment of the administration' and 'checking the majority party' and 'judgment of the Lee-Jo administration,' which seems to have brought a great number of voters to the polls.

The general election results are being summarized as a landslide victory for the Democratic Party, a crushing defeat for the People Power Party, and a strong showing by the Jo Guk Innovation Party. Currently, many media outlets and analyses are pouring out explanations as to why the People Power Party suffered such a defeat. While there are various reasons, the sentiment for judging the administration was dominant, and there were environmental factors such as an era of high inflation. Furthermore, many issues that arose during the election campaign would have been among those you see here. However, with so many things happening, I felt that we might have forgotten about the nomination period. I, for one, had already decided my vote during the nomination period. Observing the nominations of both major parties, I felt political fatigue for the first time, even as a political scientist. I even thought, 'Is there no alternative in this country?' I found the nomination process very difficult.

If we turn back the clock to the nomination period, it's unlikely that anyone expected the Democratic Party to win by a landslide. This is because the Democratic Party's nominations were so tumultuous that terms like 'pro-Lee Jae-myung windfall' and 'anti-Lee Jae-myung demise' emerged. Seeing prominent figures like Representative Park Yong-jin being denied opportunities multiple times, I realized how severe the factional conflict was, that the nomination criteria were not transparent or fair, and that only those close to Lee Jae-myung were being nominated. Some vehemently opposed this and formed the New Future Party, while others joined the People Power Party. I was quite shocked and felt that intra-party democracy appeared to be in serious decline. However, the People Power Party's nominations subsequently received relatively little attention. It was very quiet, and I recall Han Dong-hoon, the interim leader, making somewhat harsh remarks, asking, 'Is being quiet also a problem?' This led to the term 'uninspiring nominations.' The analysis suggested that the reason incumbent lawmakers were not excluded was related to the Kim Keon-hee special prosecutor bill, which would be active during their term. If incumbent lawmakers were excluded, they might support the Kim Keon-hee special prosecutor bill, and to avoid this fear, they were not excluded. I don't know if this is true.

As a result, many incumbent lawmakers remained, and among them, many administrative officials who worked in Yongsan and were close to President Yoon were nominated. Indeed, many of them were elected. So, although it was quiet, it felt as though the People Power Party was acting solely amongst themselves, disregarding public opinion. It's like when parents raise a child at home; they find everything their child does endearing. They might praise the child for running well, but when that child runs in a public place, some people find it very inconvenient and not endearing. Similarly, political parties need to consider whether the people they deem 'good' or 'talented' will be perceived as attractive and capable by everyone when they run for election. I suspect that during the nomination process, parties became insular, only praising their own members as 'cute' and 'talented.'

I was curious about how voters would evaluate this quiet yet controversial process. Then, a third force emerged. I believe it was around Lunar New Year. I had some expectations, and Professor Kang also wrote an article that I agreed with. However, immediately after Lunar New Year, it collapsed due to nomination issues. Amidst this, the Jo Guk Innovation Party appeared in early March. When I suggested in early March, as classes began, that the Jo Guk Innovation Party would win many seats, students looked at me as if to say, 'What is this professor talking about?' However, it turned out that they did absorb a significant number of votes. What I wanted to see here was that, although there are many causes, I thought the nominations likely had some influence on these outcomes. Although it's still very preliminary and difficult to discuss, I looked at how voters evaluated the nominations of both parties. As I mentioned earlier, although the Democratic Party's nominations were noisy, the proportion of voters who evaluated them negatively was much larger than the evaluation of the People Power Party's nominations. For the People Power Party, the difference between evaluating them as good or bad was about 40%, while for the Democratic Party, it was about 20%, or even less than 20%. This was the overall trend.

Then, we need to divide the supporters, right? So, looking at this table, which is a bit small because I tried to fit it all on one page, you can see the evaluation of the Democratic Party's nominations as good, broken down by party affiliation. Naturally, a majority of Democratic Party supporters would say their nominations were good, at 65%. Jo Guk Innovation Party supporters also showed a rate of over 40%. On the right side, we see the evaluation of the People Power Party's nominations as good, also broken down by party affiliation. Only People Power Party supporters rated their nominations as good, almost exclusively. Furthermore, even among People Power Party supporters, the rate did not exceed 50%. Therefore, I believe the People Power Party failed to align its nominations with voter expectations. I then examined whether there were statistically significant differences between groups. This is the right side, and the statistics might seem complex, but this is a simple average analysis.

Here, regarding the evaluation of the Democratic Party's nominations as good, on average, Democratic Party supporters naturally rated them highly. The scale is from 1 to 4, where 1 and 2 mean 'very good' and 'somewhat good,' and 3 and 4 mean 'somewhat bad' and 'very bad.' Democratic Party, Jo Guk Innovation Party, Green Justice Party, and even other parties rated them as somewhat good. There is a difference between Democratic Party supporters and Jo Guk Innovation Party supporters, though. Although this difference may seem small, I performed a T-test between these two groups, and it was statistically significant, indicating that the difference had some influence. On the other hand, looking at the People Power Party, only People Power Party supporters gave positive evaluations; supporters of all other parties were negative. As you know, supporters of the New Future Party and the Reform Party both rated the nominations as bad. So, I wanted to see if these evaluations of the two major parties' nominations influenced voting choices. First, looking only at Democratic Party supporters, those who rated the Democratic Party's nominations as good naturally voted for the Democratic Party. We examined whether they voted for the Democratic Party in both the district and proportional representation, the Democratic Party and Jo Guk Innovation Party, the Democratic Party and other parties, or only other parties, or People Power Party and other parties, or People Power Party and People Power Party. When looking at the combinations of district and proportional representation, those who rated the Democratic Party's nominations as good naturally voted heavily for the Democratic Party, and also for the Jo Guk Innovation Party. However, those who rated the nominations as bad showed much less of a difference. This suggests that they leaned more towards the combination of Democratic Party and Jo Guk Innovation Party, or Democratic Party and other parties.

In other words, people dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's nominations chose other combinations besides the Democratic Party, or selected another party for proportional representation even if they couldn't abandon the Democratic Party in their district. Next, I looked at Jo Guk Innovation Party supporters, although their numbers were not large. Here too, most chose the Democratic Party and Jo Guk Innovation Party. It appears that Jo Guk Innovation Party supporters largely came from the Democratic Party's base, leading to this outcome. However, among those who rated the Democratic Party's nominations as bad, the proportion who voted for 'other' or 'Jo Guk Innovation Party' was significantly higher than for 'Democratic Party and Jo Guk Innovation Party.' This indicates that there were differences among them as well. Then, what about People Power Party supporters? Naturally, People Power Party supporters voted for the People Power Party and the Future Korea Party, accounting for 87% and 73%, respectively. However, even here, the percentage difference between those who rated the People Power Party's nominations as bad and those who rated them as good was over 16% and 15%, a considerable gap. The proportion who voted for other parties, such as the Reform Party or other parties, was much higher among those who rated the nominations as bad compared to those who rated them as good. This shows that People Power Party supporters dissatisfied with their party's nominations voted for other combinations.

So, I compared the average evaluations of the Democratic Party and People Power Party nominations based on district and proportional representation choices. As you can see, the differences between each group were statistically significant. For Democratic Party, Democratic Alliance, Democratic Party, Jo Guk, Democratic Party, Other, Other, Other, there was a general assessment that the Democratic Party's nominations were good. For People Power Party, Future Korea Party, People Power Party, Reform Party, etc., the evaluations of the People Power Party's nominations were somewhat positive. Therefore, in my view, although it's very preliminary analysis, I believe that the evaluations of the two major parties' nominations did influence voting choices.

Also, in the survey results, when asked if the Democratic Party's nomination controversy influenced your voting decision, the proportion who answered 'yes' was higher than 'no' at 43% to 25%. Furthermore, the Yoon-Han conflict during the election process also showed a higher 'yes' response at 41% to 27%. Considering these factors, political parties will face future elections. As you can see, there are elections in 2026, 2027, and 2028, and there will be more after that. Therefore, when parties conduct nominations in the future, as I mentioned earlier, they will inevitably have factional characteristics, as political parties are formed by people with similar connections and political ideals.

However, as public organizations, the policies they pursue must be converged upon by a larger number of people to gain support and win power. If a party cannot win power in an election, it cannot realize its ideals. Therefore, they must consider the general public sentiment and establish internal party democracy, starting with the nomination process. Only then will there be a path forward in the next election. That is my belief. And regarding President Yoon, the party leadership, and Representative Lee Jae-myung, as they are all elders of the party, their opinions are naturally important. Yes, it's impossible to say they shouldn't have an opinion, but the question is whether they actually intervened in the nominations. Because Representative Lee Jae-myung, when talking about 'anti-Lee-myung death,' said he had nothing to do with it and that the party's nominations were system-based. Similarly, President Yoon dismissed it as a party decision. The problem is not whether they actually intervened, but whether voters perceive that they did. I believe this is very important.

If you feel that way, my tentative conclusion is that it will influence voting choices, as in this case.

Professor Seo Hyun-jin of Sungshin Women's University discussed the impact of nomination evaluations on voting choices in the 22nd National Assembly election. While the Democratic Party's nomination process was heavily exposed in the media, the People Power Party underwent a 'quiet' nomination. It was analyzed that voters generally evaluated the Democratic Party's nominations positively and the People Power Party's nominations negatively. The negative evaluation of the People Power Party's nominations was also evident among its supporters, and it was revealed that these evaluations led to voting behavior that did not support the People Power Party in both district and proportional representation votes. Professor Seo recommended that political parties should prepare for voters' judgment and evaluation of unfair nomination interference by politicians by conducting their nomination processes democratically and carefully in the future.

f2e34dd1a320d063

Download: Presentation Materials | Full Presentation

Full Presentation

Analysis of General Election Results and Nomination Process

What I intend to present is about nomination evaluations and voting choices. Although I have not had much time since receiving the data, the results have allowed me to draw implications about how voters perceived the nomination evaluations and how these influenced their voting choices.

Download: Presentation Materials | Full Presentation

Full Presentation

What I will present is about nomination evaluations and voting choices. Although there was not much time after receiving the data, the results allowed us to draw implications regarding how voters perceived the nomination evaluations and how these influenced their voting choices.

First, looking at this data, the election was highly contested, with the general election voter turnout reaching its highest point in 32 years. Both sides mobilized their supporters by mentioning the 'judgment of the administration' and 'checking the majority party' and 'judgment of the Lee-Jo administration,' leading to a large number of voters participating. The general election results are characterized by a landslide victory for the Democratic Party, a crushing defeat for the People Power Party, and a strong showing by the Jo Guk Innovation Party. Currently, the media is providing extensive analysis on 'why the People Power Party suffered such a defeat.' This can be seen as a result of the dominant sentiment for judging the administration and environmental factors such as an era of high inflation.

Many issues arose during the election campaign, and with so many of them, I felt as though the nomination period was forgotten. Frankly, I made my voting decision during the nomination period, and seeing the nominations of both major parties, I felt a sense of political fatigue for the first time as a political scientist. I even thought, 'Is there no alternative in this country?'

If we turn back time to the nomination period, it is unlikely that many people expected the Democratic Party to win by a landslide in this general election. The Democratic Party's nominations were so controversial that terms like 'pro-Lee Jae-myung windfall, anti-Lee Jae-myung death' emerged, leading to talk of a 'nomination earthquake.' For instance, seeing Representative Park Yong-jin denied opportunities four times, I felt the factional conflict was too severe, the nomination criteria were not transparent or fair, and only those close to Lee Jae-myung were selected. In response, some strongly opposed this and formed the New Future Party, while others joined the People Power Party, leading me to believe that intra-party democracy was in a very serious state.

In contrast, the People Power Party's nominations received relatively little attention. The nomination process was so quiet that it was described as a 'passionless nomination.' As the Democratic Party criticized the party for not cutting off incumbent lawmakers, there was an analysis that this was due to concerns that if incumbent lawmakers were cut off, they might support the special prosecutor bill concerning First Lady Kim Keon-hee, which was pending during their term. Whether this analysis is true or not, the result was that many incumbent lawmakers remained, and particularly, many former presidential secretaries and figures close to President Yoon were nominated and subsequently elected. From my perspective, it seemed to proceed quietly only within the People Power Party, largely ignoring public opinion. Since opinions were quietly gathered internally during the nomination process, it raised questions about how external voters would evaluate it.

Voter Evaluation of Major Parties' Nominations

Meanwhile, the 'third zone' emerged but collapsed shortly after the Lunar New Year. In early March, the Cho Kuk Innovation Party appeared. Although there were doubts about them initially, they actually absorbed a significant number of votes. What I want to emphasize here is that while there are many factors, nominations likely played a certain role. When examining voters' evaluations of the nominations of both major parties, although the Democratic Party's nomination process was noisy, voters actually gave a strongly negative evaluation to the People Power Party's nominations. The difference in evaluation between 'People Power Party nominated well' and 'People Power Party nominated poorly' was nearly 40%, while for the Democratic Party, the difference for the same item was found to be about 20%.

Let's examine the proportion of supporters who rated the Democratic Party's nominations as good, by their party affiliation. Please refer to the left side of the screen. Naturally, many Democratic Party supporters rated the Democratic Party's nominations as 'good,' accounting for 65%, while Cho Kuk Innovation Party supporters rated them at about 40%.

The right side of the screen shows data representing the proportion of voters who rated the People Power Party's nominations as 'good.' The evaluation of 'good' for the People Power Party's nominations was made only by People Power Party supporters, and even among them, it did not exceed 50%. Ultimately, I believe the People Power Party failed to align its nominations with the expectations of voters.

To examine whether these differences are statistically significant between groups, a simple mean analysis was conducted, and the results are shown on the right side of the screen. Responses were possible on a scale of 1 to 4, representing 'very well,' 'fairly well,' 'fairly poorly,' and 'very poorly,' respectively.

Regarding the question of whether the Democratic Party's nominations were well-executed, a positive assessment was given to the Democratic Party, the Jo Guk Innovation Party, the Green Party, and other parties. There was a difference between Democratic Party supporters and Jo Guk Innovation Party supporters; as this difference appeared small, a t-test was conducted between these two groups, revealing a statistically significant difference, indicating that the difference between them held a significant influence.

The Impact of Nomination Evaluation on Voting Choice

Conversely, looking at the People Power Party, only their supporters rated the nominations positively; supporters of all other parties rated them negatively. Supporters of the New Future Party and the Reform Party both rated the nominations of both parties as bad. Let's examine how these evaluations of the two parties' nominations influenced voting choices. Among Democratic Party supporters alone, it is natural that many would have rated the Democratic Party's nominations as good.

For the combination of district and proportional representation, we examined whether voters selected Democratic Party + Democratic Party, Democratic Party + Jo Guk's party, Democratic Party + other parties, or alternatively, other + other parties, People Power Party + other parties, or People Power Party + People Power Party.

When looking at the combination of district and proportional representation, those who believed the Democratic Party's nominations were well-executed naturally supported the Democratic Party heavily, and also strongly supported Jo Guk's party. Looking at those who believed the nominations were poorly executed, the difference was far less pronounced. This suggests that voters leaned more towards the Democratic Party + Jo Guk's party combination, or the Democratic Party + other parties combination. Individuals dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's nominations, while perhaps unable to abandon the Democratic Party for the district representative, opted for a different party for proportional representation, choosing combinations other than Democratic Party + Democratic Party.

Next, we examined the Jo Guk Innovation Party's support base, and found that they predominantly selected the Democratic Party + Jo Guk Innovation Party combination. This outcome appears to be due to strong support for the Jo Guk Innovation Party among Democratic Party supporters. Here, those who evaluated the Democratic Party's nominations as 'poorly executed' showed a significantly higher proportion selecting the other parties + Jo Guk Innovation Party combination compared to the Democratic Party + Jo Guk Innovation Party combination. Therefore, my finding was that a slight difference also exists between these groups.

We then examined the patterns observed among the People Power Party's support base, and found that they overwhelmingly selected the People Power Party + People Power Future combination, with proportions of 87% and 73% respectively. However, even here, a considerable difference of over 15% was observed between those who assessed the People Power Party's nominations as poorly executed and those who assessed them as well-executed. Those who rated the nominations as poorly executed showed a significantly higher proportion opting for combinations such as People Power Party + Reform Party or other parties, and other parties + other parties. This confirms that individuals dissatisfied with their own party's nominations did not vote for the People Power Party + People Power Future combination but rather for other combinations.

As before, we conducted a mean comparison to see if the evaluations of the Democratic Party and People Power Party nominations differed across combinations of district and proportional representation choices. The results show that the differences between each group were statistically significant.

In combinations such as Democratic Party + Democratic Union, Democratic Party + Jo Guk's party, Democratic Party + other parties, and other parties + other parties, the assessment that the Democratic Party's nominations were well-executed was prevalent. For People Power Party + People Power Future and People Power Party + Reform Party, the assessment of the People Power Party's nominations was positive. This revealed an implication that the evaluation of both major parties' nominations influenced voting choices.

Direction and Implications for Future Party Nominations

Although not included in the presentation slides, a survey asking 'Did the Democratic Party's nomination controversy affect your voting decision?' showed a higher proportion of respondents stating it did affect their decision (43%) compared to those who said it did not (25%). Similarly, in response to a question about the Yoon-Han conflict during the nomination and election processes, the proportion of respondents who indicated it had an impact (41%) was higher than those who said it did not (27%).

Although the general election has ended, as elections are scheduled to continue in 2026, 2027, and 2028, and will persist hereafter, political parties must begin with candidate nominations. Parties, by their nature, are comprised of individuals with similar ideologies and political ideals, thus inevitably possessing factional characteristics. Nevertheless, as public organizations, parties must ensure their pursued public policies converge with the broader populace to garner support and win power. After all, parties cannot realize their ideals if they fail to attain power through elections. Therefore, candidate nominations must be conducted while establishing intra-party democracy by considering the general electorate and public sentiment. This is the path to success in the next election. This is my opinion.

It is natural for President Yoon, the ruling party leadership, or Representative Lee Jae-myung to express their opinions, as they are all members of their respective parties. Representative Lee Jae-myung has consistently asserted that he did not engage in 'pro-Lee non-election' practices and that the Democratic Party's nominations are system-based. Likewise, President Yoon dismissed concerns by stating that nominations are decided by the party. While it remains unknown whether they actually intervened in the nominations, regardless of the reality, the voters' perception is a crucial issue. If voters feel that way, it will influence their voting choices, as seen in this election. This is my provisional conclusion.

Presenter: Seo Hyun-jin, Professor at Sungshin Women's University

■ Management and Editing: Kim Sun-hee, EAI Research Fellow

Inquiries: 02-2277-1683 (ext. 209) shkim@eai.or.kr