[EAI Opinion Review] Examining Generational Variables to Determine the Final Winner of the 2012 Three Kingdoms

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

The 2002 election marked the full emergence of generational rifts. The 20s and 30s supported candidate Roh Moo-hyun, while the 50s and 60s supported candidate Lee Hoi-chang. The pivotal 40s were divided between Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Hoi-chang ([Figure 1]). Despite a relatively low voter turnout, the 20s and 30s, comprising an overwhelming 48.9% of the electorate, propelled Roh Moo-hyun to victory. In 2007, Lee Myung-bak even won among the 20s and 30s, surpassing Chung Dong-young, casting doubt on the influence of generational voting. However, five years later, generational voting has made a more spectacular comeback.

1. Changes in Generational Confrontation Patterns

Strengthening of Generational Voting Trends during the Primary Election Period

Survey results from the election preparation period, before each party's candidate was confirmed, before Moon Jae-in was officially selected as the Democratic Party's candidate in late September, and before Ahn Cheol-soo's official candidacy, show that generational voting is being restored in a new pattern. This is the result of the 20s and 30s, who had defected in support of Lee Myung-bak in 2007, returning to an anti-Saenuri Party, pro-opposition stance by showing a critical attitude towards the incumbent government. Ultimately, the 40s hold the casting vote. Support rates fluctuate according to their sentiment. During this period, Ahn Cheol-soo showed a relatively strong swing-voting tendency, with small and fluctuating gaps in support rates between Park Geun-hye and opposition candidates. In a multi-candidate race among opposition supporters, the 50s and 60s overwhelmingly favored Park Geun-hye, while the 20s and 30s overwhelmingly favored Ahn Cheol-soo. Moon Jae-in failed to demonstrate a distinct presence among voters from the 20s to the 40s, who tend to support the opposition.

Three-Way Power Balance After Candidate Selection: Ahn in the 20s-30s, Moon in the 40s, Park in the 50s-60s

However, significant changes have been detected since candidate selection in September and the official start of the presidential race after the Chuseok holiday. The most significant change during this period is the emergence of a three-way balance of power, with Moon Jae-in's strong performance continuing. According to the panel survey results of 1,559 respondents conducted by EAI, SBS, JoongAng Ilbo, and Korea Research, Park Geun-hye and Ahn Cheol-soo are in a close race within the margin of error, with 44.7% and 50.6% respectively, and Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in at 47.4% and 48.8% respectively. In a three-way race, Park Geun-hye is leading, with Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in trailing. Park Geun-hye cannot secure an absolute majority alone, and while Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in individually trail Park Geun-hye, their combined support surpasses Park Geun-hye's support rate.

Synthesizing the changes in multi-candidate support rates by generation in [Figure 1] and generational head-to-head support rates in [Figure 2], Ahn Cheol-soo has high support among the 20s and 30s. However, Moon Jae-in has also shown a steady increase in support since the April 11 general election. In contrast, the 40s sharply shifted to support Moon Jae-in after the Democratic Party's candidate selection in September and Ahn Cheol-soo's official declaration of candidacy. Although Ahn Cheol-soo's support rate surged temporarily after his official announcement, concerns about his political leadership and governing capabilities materialized, leading to a shift back to the more stable Moon Jae-in. This is the factor that has created the current three-way balance of power.

2. Issues Surrounding Generational Voting

Is Generational Voter Turnout the Key Issue?

Many experts and media outlets often cite generational voter turnout as a key variable influencing elections. While it is undeniable that generational differences in voting preferences significantly impact election outcomes, we must not overlook that voter turnout is the result of individual voting behavior, which individuals can influence. Efforts to encourage voting or improve institutional mechanisms may not yield substantial effects on the act of voting itself. Even with the perceived significant role of social media 'proof-of-voting' photos in boosting participation, the voter turnout for the April 11 general election was merely 54.3%, despite extensive social media campaigns and celebrity events. Voter turnout is a dependent variable; it is not a direct determinant of voters' choices. While efforts to encourage participation and extend voting hours are necessary and may be part of election strategy, institutional reforms not based on an accurate understanding of the situation are unlikely to significantly increase actual voter turnout (See EAI Opinion Review 2012-07).

Changes in Generational Distribution and Generational Support Rates are the Key Variables

Attention should be focused on generational support rates rather than generational voter turnout. In other words, election campaigns resonate with voters when they offer policies that fulfill voters' demands and expectations, and candidates demonstrate their commitment and intent to implement these pledges. Simply put, simply urging people to vote will not increase turnout, but candidates who offer appealing pledges, present concrete implementation plans and intentions, and compete for votes will garner voter response. If generations are a variable, then generational strategies and pledges must be prepared to change generational support rates. This is a practical variable that candidates, parties, and election camps can control.

Regarding the effects of generational support rates, it is noteworthy that in the 18th presidential election, the absolute size of the 50-60 age group increased compared to the 16th presidential election in 2002, while the size of the 20-30 age group decreased, as I first revealed in a report last July. Considering the relatively high voter turnout of the 50-60 age group, this creates a generational voting dynamic favorable to candidate Park Geun-hye, who receives overwhelming support from this demographic. Nevertheless, the current balance of power is maintained because the 40s demographic has shown a pro-opposition tendency since the presidential race began in earnest, thereby balancing the forces.

[Figure 1] Generational Presidential Election Support: April 11 General Election - October

[Figure 2] Changes in Generational Head-to-Head Competition (%)

2. Remaining Variables

Park Geun-hye's "Home Base" Argument: Conservative Consolidation Risks Alienating the 40s

Candidate Park Geun-hye experienced a notable erosion of her support base in August-September due to past controversies surrounding the May 16th military coup and allegations of corruption involving her close associates. She was able to recover her previous approval ratings through decisive apologies and a direct confrontation with these issues. However, recent explanations regarding the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation and the recommendation for the resignation of its chairman, Choi Pil-lip, have encountered difficulties. Furthermore, the series of negative campaigns, including the merger with the Future Hope Alliance party and the NLL controversy, evoke memories of conservative consolidation tactics. This contradicts Park's strategy of reform and moderation within the conservative camp, which she has emphasized thus far. While this might be understandable as a supplementary strategy for consolidating her base within the framework of conservative reform, it is important to recall that the decline in Park's approval ratings during August-September, when past controversies and corruption allegations were concentrated, was primarily observed among the 40s demographic.

If we conduct a simple simulation using the generational voter turnout rates from the 16th presidential election, when voter turnout was high, and apply them to the generational support rates from this panel survey, the results show that if the gap is 19.9% or more (Park 37.6% vs. Ahn 57.5%), candidate Ahn Cheol-soo leads by over 540,000 votes (Table 2-1). Conversely, if Park Geun-hye's support rate in the 40s increases by 5% and Ahn Cheol-soo's support rate decreases by 5%, narrowing the gap to 9.9%, Park would win by 124,000 votes, leveraging the high voter turnout of the 50-60 age group (Table 2-2). To mitigate the anti-opposition tendency of the 40s demographic and reduce the support gap, maintaining consistency with the moderation and reformist agenda emphasized thus far is crucial. Shifting positions during the election campaign process will likely result in more harm than good.

Will Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in Overcome Their Bias Towards the 20s-30s Demographic?

Conversely, the opposition camp urgently needs a strategy for the 50-60 age group. Even if they secure a bloc vote by relying on the 20-30 age group, considering the absolute increase in the 50-60 demographic compared to a decade ago and their relatively high voter turnout, they cannot guarantee victory even with unification if they remain at current support rates of around 30% in the 50s and 20% in the 60s. It is undeniable that candidate Roh Moo-hyun narrowly won his election despite the overwhelming support from the 20-30 demographic, which constituted the majority of the electorate at the time, due to their low voter turnout.

However, more importantly, candidate Roh Moo-hyun secured 40.1% support among the 50s and 34.9% support among the 60s and above, narrowing the vote gap within the 50-60 demographic. As shown in [Figure 3], while support rate fluctuations are minimal among the 60s, the 50s showed considerable variation. The '99% of the common people' emphasized by the opposition party primarily refers to the low-income strata in Korean society, and this low-income population is largely composed of older generations. To reduce the support gap among the 50-60 age group, a refinement of policies targeting this demographic appears necessary. Recent policies, such as the phased extension of the retirement age to 65, seem to address this need.

Ultimately, will the focus be on generational voter turnout, for which there are no specific alternatives as the election approaches, or will it be on changing generational support rates through active pledge development and communication targeting vulnerable groups? The outcome of the generational war ultimately seems to depend on the strategic decisions of each candidate.■

[Table 1] Generational Voting Divide: 19th General Election and 16th-17th Presidential Elections

Note: Figures in parentheses are actual vote shares announced by the National Election Commission (Third-party candidate support rates, such as those for Moon Kook-hyun and Lee Hoi-chang in the 17th presidential election, are not shown).

[Table 2] Simulation 1: Applying 16th Presidential Election Generational Voter Turnout* and Panel Survey Support Rates <Park : Ahn >

Source: EAI·SBS·JoongAng Ilbo·Korea Research Panel Survey (October 11-14)

Source: EAI·SBS·JoongAng Ilbo·Korea Research Panel Survey (October 11-14)

[Table 4] Generational Voting Divide: 19th General Election and 16th-17th Presidential Elections

Note: Figures in parentheses are actual vote shares announced by the National Election Commission.

(Third-party candidate support rates, such as those for Moon Kook-hyun and Lee Hoi-chang in the 17th presidential election, are not shown)