[Public Opinion Brief No. 112] Voter Panel's Evaluation of the 4.11 General Election

[Public Opinion Brief No. 112] Joint 2012 General Election & Presidential Election Panel Survey by EAI, SBS, JoongAng Ilbo, and Korea Research

1. Voting Decision and Party Support

2. Evaluation of the General Election and Factors for the Saenuri Party's Victory

1. Voting Decision and Party Support

■ Following the first round of the '2012 General Election & Presidential Election Panel' survey conducted by EAI in collaboration with SBS, JoongAng Ilbo, and Korea Research from March 30 to April 1, the second round survey was conducted from April 12 to 15. Among the voter panel participants in the second round, the proportion who responded that they had voted in the 19th National Assembly election held on April 11 was 88.8% (1,447 individuals). This is 34.5 percentage points (p) higher than the national voter turnout of 54.3% provisionally calculated by the National Election Commission. Therefore, the results of the second survey should be interpreted with consideration for the characteristics of the voter panel, who are more politically interested and have more active attitudes, rather than representing the general electorate.

■ Among the 11.2% (187 individuals) who responded that they had not voted, the most common reason cited was "lack of time due to work or family matters" at 54.7%. "Nothing changes even if I vote" was cited by 10.2%. "It was obvious who would win" and "there was no one worth voting for" were cited by 8.5% and 8.0%, respectively. Other reasons included "lack of interest in politics" at 4.2%, "I didn't know who was running yet" at 1.5%, and miscellaneous reasons at 12.9%.

1) Voting Results

Busan/Ulsan/Gyeongnam, Voted for Democratic United Party Candidate 30.9%

Gwangju/Jeonnam/Jeonbuk, Voted for Independent Candidate 19.1% Voted for Unified Progressive Party Candidate 14.2%

■ Examining the party affiliation of the district National Assembly candidates chosen by the voter panel, the Saenuri Party accounted for 42.8%, and the Democratic United Party accounted for 42.3%. The Unified Progressive Party was cited by 4.7%, and the Liberal Advancement Party by 1.5%. The proportion of respondents who voted for an independent candidate was 5.9%, higher than that for the Unified Progressive Party, and ranked third after the Saenuri Party and the Democratic United Party.

[Figure 1] Party Affiliation of District Assembly Candidates Voted For by Voter Panel (%)

■ There are differences between the overall response proportions in the survey results and the results by region of residence. In the Seoul Metropolitan Area and the Chungcheong region, the difference in the proportion of respondents who voted for either the Saenuri Party or the Democratic United Party candidate did not exceed 5 percentage points (p). More specifically, in Seoul, 44.5% responded they voted for a Saenuri Party candidate, and 45.6% for a Democratic United Party candidate. In Incheon and Gyeonggi, the Saenuri Party was chosen by 42.7% and the Democratic United Party by 47.8%. In Daejeon and the Chungcheong region, the difference in the proportion of respondents who voted for either the Saenuri Party or the Democratic United Party candidate was also not significant. In these regions, the Saenuri Party's response proportion was 40.2%, and the Democratic United Party's was 42.8%.

■ In regions other than the Seoul Metropolitan Area and the Chungcheong region, the difference in response proportions between the two parties was large. In the Gwangju, Jeonnam, and Jeonbuk regions, the proportion of respondents who voted for a Saenuri Party candidate was only 4.6%, while the proportion who voted for a Democratic United Party candidate reached 60.4%. In the Daegu and Gyeongbuk regions, the proportion of respondents who voted for a Saenuri Party candidate was 65.1%, while the proportion who voted for a Democratic United Party candidate was 19.4%. In the Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongnam regions, the figures were 53.1% for the Saenuri Party and 30.9% for the Democratic United Party.

■ Regional differences were also observed in the proportion of respondents who voted for Unified Progressive Party and independent candidates. In the Gwangju, Jeonnam, and Jeonbuk regions, the response proportion for the Unified Progressive Party was 14.2%. In Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongnam, it was 6.9%. These figures are relatively high compared to other regions where response proportions were within 3%.

[Figure 2] Party Affiliation of District Candidates Voted For by Region (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Note) The number of voter panel participants who voted in Gangwon and Jeju was only 66, so these were excluded from the analysis.

2) Change in Supported Candidate

Saenuri Party Support Retention Rate 90.0% Democratic United Party 83.2%

Of the 43 Saenuri Party supporters who defected, 23 moved to the Democratic United Party

Of the 68 Democratic United Party supporters who defected, 31 moved to the Saenuri Party

■ Among the voter panel participants who responded in the first survey that they would vote for a Saenuri Party candidate and also participated in the second survey, the proportion who voted for a Saenuri Party candidate in the April 11 general election was 90.0% (385 out of 428 individuals). For the Democratic United Party, this figure was 83.2% (336 out of 404 individuals).

■ Among the voter panel participants who participated in both the first and second surveys, 10.0% (43 individuals) who withdrew their support for a Saenuri Party candidate and 16.8% (68 individuals) who withdrew their support for a Democratic United Party candidate were examined. Of the Saenuri Party defectors, 5.4% (23 individuals) moved to the Democratic United Party, 0.9% (4 individuals) to the Liberal Advancement Party, and 3.7% (16 individuals) moved to other parties or independent candidates.

■ Among the Democratic United Party defectors, 7.7% (31 individuals) moved to the Saenuri Party, which was more than the 23 individuals who moved from the Saenuri Party to the Democratic United Party. Supporters who moved to the Unified Progressive Party accounted for 5.7% (23 individuals), and the Liberal Advancement Party accounted for 1 individual (0.2%). Excluding 0.5% (2 individuals) for "don't know/no answer," the remaining 3.0% (13 individuals) moved to other parties or independent candidates.

[Figure 3] Movement of Defecting Voter Panelists (Individuals)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

3) Factors for Deciding Supported Candidate

Party Factor Increased from 18.2% to 29.3%

Candidate's Ideology/Platform Decreased from 21.0% to 14.2%, Morality Factor Decreased from 20.0% to 7.9%

■ Regarding voting criteria, as introduced in [Public Opinion Brief No. 110] 'Key Results of the 2012 General Election & Presidential Election 1st Panel Survey,' the proportion of respondents who cited factors related to the candidate's individual attributes rather than their party affiliation remained high in the second survey. However, the proportion of respondents citing the candidate's party affiliation increased compared to the first survey results. Among voter panel participants who responded to both the first and second surveys, the proportion who cited 'candidate's party affiliation' as a voting criterion was 29.3%, an increase of 11.3 percentage points (p) compared to 18.2% at the time of the first survey results announced on April 9.

■ While the response proportions for factors related to the candidate's individual attributes remained higher than the party factor, the response proportions for factors other than the candidate's ability and experience (37.4%) decreased. The proportion citing the candidate's ideology and platform decreased from 21.0% in the first survey to 14.2%, and the proportion citing the candidate's morality decreased from 20.0% in the first survey to 7.9%, a decrease of 6.8 percentage points (p) and 2.1 percentage points (p), respectively.

[Figure 4] Comparison of Factors for Deciding Supported Candidate (%)

20s and 30s: From Ideology and Platform to Party Affiliation

40s and above: From Candidate's Morality to Party Affiliation

■ Examining the factors for deciding the supported candidate by comparing the first and second survey results based on region of residence and age group, the most significant change was observed in the Daegu and Gyeongbuk regions. In these regions, the proportion of respondents who cited the candidate's party affiliation as a voting criterion increased from 9.8% in the first survey to 28.4% in the second survey, an increase of 18.6 percentage points (p). In the Seoul Metropolitan Area and Chungcheong regions, an increase of over 10 percentage points (p) was also observed.

■ In contrast, in the Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongnam regions, and in the Gwangju and Jeolla regions, the increase was 7.3 percentage points (p) and 4.7 percentage points (p), respectively, indicating that the emphasis on party affiliation in deciding the supported candidate did not increase significantly compared to other regions.

■ Examining the party factor by age group in the first and second survey results, a consistent increase of around 10 percentage points (p) was observed across all age groups.

■ However, when examining specific age groups, there are differences in the factors that decreased in proportion alongside the rise of the party factor. For individuals in their 20s and 30s, the decline in 'candidate's ideology and platform' was over 10 percentage points (p). In contrast, for those aged 40 and above, the decline was less than 5 percentage points (p). Instead, for this age group (40 and above), the proportion citing 'candidate's morality' decreased by over 10 percentage points (p). Consequently, it can be inferred that in the decision-making process for supported candidates, individuals in their 20s and 30s shifted their focus from the candidate's ideology and platform to party affiliation, while those aged 40 and above shifted from the candidate's morality to party affiliation.

[Table 1] Comparison of Factors for Deciding Supported Candidate by Region of Residence and Age Group (%)

Note) "Other" and "Don't know/No answer" were excluded from the analysis.

4) Proportional Representation Voting

Saenuri Party Increased by 0.9% P, Democratic United Party Decreased by 7.0% P Compared to District Elections

■ In the proportional representation vote, 41.9% of voter panel participants chose the Saenuri Party. This represents a 0.9 percentage point (p) increase compared to the 42.8% who chose the Saenuri Party in the district National Assembly election. In contrast, the proportion who responded they voted for the Democratic United Party was 35.3%, a decrease of 7.0 percentage points (p) compared to 42.3% in the district National Assembly election. The Unified Progressive Party garnered a response proportion of 14.8%, an increase of 10.1 percentage points (p) from 4.7% in the district election. This increase in the Democratic United Party's response proportion and the decrease in the Unified Progressive Party's response proportion in the proportional representation vote can be understood as a weakening of the candidate consolidation effect observed in the district elections.

[Figure 5] Parties Voted for in District and Proportional Representation Elections (%)

5) Timing of Deciding Supported Candidate

60.8% Decided Supported Candidate "Within One Week Before Election Day"

■ Regarding the timing of deciding the supported candidate, 60.8% responded "within one week before election day." More specifically, 22.5% decided about a week before election day, 27.4% decided 2-3 days before the election, and 10.9% decided on election day itself. Conversely, 38.9% responded "more than two weeks before election day." Of these, 12.7% decided immediately after candidate registration (two weeks before election day), and the proportions who decided one month before or earlier were 7.9% and 18.3%, respectively.

[Figure 6] Timing of Deciding Supported Candidate (%)

Note) 0.3% for Don't know/No answer was excluded from the analysis.

Decided Supported Candidate 1 Month Prior: Saenuri Party 27.2%, Democratic United Party 20.5%

Decided 2-3 Days Prior: Saenuri Party 17.3%, Democratic United Party 26.2%

■ We examined the timing of supporters' decisions regarding their preferred candidate in the April 11 general election among voter panels that participated in both the first and second surveys. First, among respondents who stated they supported the Saenuri Party, 27.2% indicated they decided on their candidate more than one month before the election. The proportion who decided approximately one month before the election was 10.0%, and approximately two weeks before the election was 14.8%. Consequently, the percentage of voter panels who decided to vote for the Saenuri Party candidate more than two weeks before the election was 52.0%. The proportion who decided approximately one week before the election was 23.9%. Those who decided approximately two to three days before the election accounted for 17.3%, and those who decided on election day accounted for 6.7%. The total proportion who decided within approximately one week before the election was 47.9%.

■ Examining the timing of candidate decisions among voter panels who supported the Democratic United Party (DUP) candidate, the proportion who decided more than one month prior was 20.5%. Approximately one month prior was 8.7%, and approximately two weeks prior was 14.0%. Therefore, the total percentage of voter panels who decided to vote for the DUP candidate more than two weeks before the election was 43.2%. The proportion who decided approximately one week before the election was 23.7%, two to three days before was 26.2%, and on election day was 6.7%. Among voter panels who stated they voted for the DUP candidate, the proportion who decided within approximately one week before the election was 56.6%.

[Figure 7] Timing of Candidate Support Decisions by Saenuri Party and DUP Supporters (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Note: Don't know/No answer (0.3%) excluded from analysis.

2. Evaluation of the General Election and Factors for the Saenuri Party's Victory

1) Voter Panel Evaluation of the General Election

April 11 General Election: A campaign centered on policy debates: 43.1%

A campaign with intensified negative campaigning: 56.6%

■ Regarding the question of whether the recent election was centered on policy debates, 43.1% of voter panels responded affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree), while 54.2% responded negatively (Strongly disagree + Generally disagree), indicating that negative evaluations were relatively higher than positive ones. This negative evaluation differed between Saenuri Party supporters and DUP supporters. Among Saenuri Party supporters, the proportion responding affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree) was 65.5%, whereas among DUP supporters, the proportion responding affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree) was only 35.4%.

■ Concerning government and presidential intervention in the election, 30.3% responded affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree), while 65.5% responded negatively (Strongly disagree + Generally disagree). Differences in response rates based on party affiliation were also observed here. Among Saenuri Party supporters, the affirmative response rate was 19.3%, whereas among DUP supporters, it was 38.3%.

■ Regarding the statement that regionalism weakened in this election, 41.9% responded affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree), while 56.2% responded negatively (Strongly disagree + Generally disagree). By party affiliation, 49.8% of Saenuri Party supporters and 40.6% of DUP supporters responded affirmatively.

■ On the evaluation that mudslinging among candidates intensified in this election, the affirmative response rate (Strongly agree + Generally agree) was 56.6%, higher than the negative response rate (Strongly disagree + Generally disagree) of 40.5%. Examining by party affiliation, 57.0% of Saenuri Party supporters and 56.2% of DUP supporters responded affirmatively (Strongly agree + Generally agree), indicating no significant difference in response rates compared to other election evaluation items.

[Figure 8] Evaluation of the General Election by Item (%)

2) Election Issues

2nd: Controversy over candidate Kim Yong-min's remarks; 3rd: Private surveillance and corruption by those in power; 1st: Regional development and local pledges

DUP supporters citing Kim Yong-min candidate's controversial remarks: 16.6%

■ Examining voter panel responses regarding issues that influenced the general election, the top issue was "Regional development and local pledges," with an response rate of 18.0%. The second was "Controversy over candidate Kim Yong-min's remarks," with a response rate of 17.2%, and the third was "Private surveillance and corruption by those in power," at 14.5%. "Economic growth" ranked fourth with 12.1%, and "Welfare issues" and "Korea-US FTA" tied for fifth with 8.3%. Additionally, "Opposition party integration" and "North Korea's security threat" had the same response rate of 7.2%, while "Chaebol reform" and "Candidate Moon Dae-sung's plagiarism controversy" had response rates of 3.7% and 1.4%, respectively.

■ Comparing the second survey results for Saenuri Party and DUP supporters, the most important issues for Saenuri Party supporters in this general election were "Regional development and local pledges" (19.8%) and "Controversy over candidate Kim Yong-min's remarks" (19.5%). They also showed high response rates for "Economic growth" (16.8%), "North Korea's security threat" (11.7%), and "Korea-US FTA" (9.2%). For DUP supporters, the key issues were "Private surveillance and corruption by those in power" (23.4%) and "Controversy over candidate Kim Yong-min's remarks" (16.5%). Many also cited "Regional development and local pledges" (16.1%), "Economic growth" (9.2%), and "Welfare issues" (8.3%).

■ We compared the second survey results with the first survey results for Saenuri Party and DUP supporters to examine changes in response rates. The analysis revealed that the issue with the largest change in response rate was "Welfare issues," with an increase of 2.1 percentage points (p) for Saenuri Party supporters (from 5.7% to 7.8%) and a decrease of 2.5 percentage points (p) for DUP supporters (from 10.8% to 8.3%). Changes in response rates for other issues were all within 2 percentage points.

[Table 2] Factors Influencing the Election by Party Affiliation (%)

3) Factors for the Saenuri Party's Victory

Opposition parties, including the DUP, performed poorly: 38.2%

Chairperson Park Geun-hye performed well: 27.5%; Saenuri Party performed well: 4.6%

■ Regarding the "reasons for the Saenuri Party's victory," which secured 152 seats in the April 11 general election, voter panels most frequently cited "Opposition parties, including the DUP, performed poorly," with 38.2%. "Chairperson Park Geun-hye performed well" was the second most cited reason, with a response rate of 27.5%. The proportion citing candidate-related factors was low. "Saenuri Party candidates were better" or "Opposition candidates were lacking" were cited by 9.7% and 7.0%, respectively. The response rate for "Saenuri Party performed well" was only 4.6%.

■ We compared the survey results of voter panels who voted for Saenuri Party candidates in the district elections with those who voted for DUP candidates. Among voter panels who voted for Saenuri Party candidates, the most frequently cited reason was that Chairperson Park Geun-hye performed well, with a response rate of 36.3%. "Opposition parties, including the DUP, performed poorly" was cited by 31.3%, followed by "Saenuri Party candidates were better" at 13.7%, and "Saenuri Party performed well" at 7.0%. Among voter panels who voted for DUP candidates, the most cited reason for the Saenuri Party's victory was that "Opposition parties, including the DUP, performed poorly," accounting for 45.7%. "Chairperson Park Geun-hye performed well" was the second most cited reason with 20.6%. Additionally, Don't know/No answer accounted for 17.1%, "Opposition candidates were lacking" for 8.0%, and "Saenuri Party candidates were better" for 5.4%.

[Figure 9] Reasons for Saenuri Party's Victory (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063