Wagne , Aiko; Lich eblau, Josephine
A icle — Published Ve sion
Ge many Going Pos al? Compa ing Pos al and Elec ion
Day Vo e s in he 2017 Ge man Fede al Elec ion
Ge man Poli ics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Wagne , Aiko; Lich eblau, Josephine (2022) : Ge many Going Pos al? Compa ing
Pos al and Elec ion Day Vo e s in he 2017 Ge man Fede al Elec ion, Ge man Poli ics, ISSN
1743-8993, Taylo & F ancis, London, Vol. 31, Iss. 4, pp. 602-625,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09644008.2020.1759553
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/218878
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Ge many Going Pos al? Compa ing Pos al and
Elec ion Day Vo e s in he 2017 Ge man Fede al
Elec ion*
AIKO WAGNER and JOSEPHINE LICHTEBLAU
The p opo ion o o e s cas ing hei o es by mail days o e en weeks be o e elec-
ion day has isen om ini ially fi e pe cen o nea ly hi y pe cen in he 2017
Ge man ede al elec ion. A he same ime, he di e ences in elec ion esul s
be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s a e inc easing, eaching a eco d a he Bun-
des ag elec ion in 2017. Agains his backg ound, i seems pa icula ly su p ising
ha he e a e only a small numbe o empi ical s udies on pos al o ing in
Ge many. Fo an e alua ion (o he de elopmen ) o pos al o ing, i is c ucial o
in es iga e he ac o s esponsible o he di e en elec ion esul s be ween he
wo o e g oups. This equi es mo e p ecise knowledge o pos al o e s and how
hey di e om o e s who cas hei ballo s on elec ion day. Using da a om he
Ge man Longi udinal Elec ion S udy (GLES), we in es iga e in how a composi ion
e ec s –di e ences be ween he o e ypes in he composi ion o ac o s po en ially
ele an o pa y choice –and associa ion e ec s –di e ences ega ding hei o e
unc ions o c i e ia applied o o e choice –can help o explain he di e en elec-
o al ou comes. We conclude ha he o e ypes do no di e subs an ially om
each o he wi h ega ds o hei decision c i e ia bu ha hei composi ion
di e s wi h ega ds o ce ain cha ac e is ics ele an o pa y choice.
INTRODUCTION
In o de o s eng hen he p inciple o uni e sal su age, pos al o ing was in oduced in
Ge many a he 1957 Bundes ag elec ions. Vo e s unable o cas hei o e a he polling
s a ion on elec ion day should be enabled o o e by mail in ad ance. One o he main
goals associa ed wi h he in oduc ion o pos al o ing (and la e o abandoning he
necessi y o s a e easons when applying o pos al ballo documen s in 2008), was
hus o inc ease o e u nou . Since hen, pos al o ing in Ge many has de eloped
in o a ue success s o y. Since eunifica ion in 1990, he p opo ion o pos al o e s
has isen s eadily, eaching a eco d high in he las Bundes ag elec ion in 2017, in
which almos one hi d o all o es we e cas by mail. A he same ime, howe e ,
*An ea lie d a o his pape was p esen ed a he 2018 con en ion o he Ge man Poli ical Science Associ-
a ion in F ank u .
Ge man Poli ics, Vol.31, No.4, 2022, pp.602–625
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09644008.2020.1759553 © 2020 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed,
ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License
(h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion
in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
di e ences in he elec ion esul s o pos al o e s and hose o ballo box o e s a e
inc easing. In his espec , oo, he 2017 Bundes ag elec ions p esen a eco d, he di e -
ences in he pa ies’sha es o he second o es be ween he wo elec o al g oups ha ing
been g ea e han in any p e ious Bundes ag elec ion. Agains his backg ound, i is
a he su p ising ha he e a e ha dly any empi ical s udies examining pos al o ing
in Ge many. In in e na ional esea ch, pos al o ing is commonly analysed as one
o m o ea ly o ing o con enience o ing. In his esea ch s and, mos s udies deal
wi h no ma i e expec a ions asking whe he ea ly o ing in ac leads o highe pa ici-
pa ion a es o educes social selec i i y in elec o al pa icipa ion and, hus, helps o
educe unde ep esen a ion o ce ain g oups’p e e ences.
Bu how can we e alua e pos al o ing in Ge many? The answe o his ques ion
depends la gely on he ac o s esponsible o he di e en elec ion esul s be ween
pos al and elec ion day o e s. The objec i e o his a icle, he e o e, is o de elop
and es an explana o y model o he di e ences in he pa ies’ o e sha es be ween
he wo g oups o o e s.
Explaining hese beha iou al di e ences equi es mo e p ecise knowledge o pos al
o e s and how hey di e om elec ion day o e s. In p inciple, he e a e wo ypes o
e ec s ha can cause he di e ences in o ing beha iou o wo aspec s in which o e
ypes a e di e en . Fi s , composi ion e ec s, i.e. di e ences in he composi ion o
po en ially decision- ele an ea u es, can cause di e en o ing decisions. Second,
he li e a u e on o e he e ogenei y sugges s ha di e ences can also be he esul o
di e en decision c i e ia o o e unc ions. In his line o hinking he di e ences in
pa y s eng hs can be a ibu ed o so-called associa ion e ec s.
To e alua e pos al o ing in Ge many, we hus ask wha ole composi ion and
associa ion e ec s espec i ely play o explaining di e ences in pa y choice
be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s. Fi s , we b iefly discuss he cu en s a e o
esea ch on ea ly o ing in Ge many and, based on ha , conside which c i e ia can
be used o e alua e pos al o ing in Ge many in a no ma i e sense. In his con ex ,
we p esen ou explana o y model o he di e en elec ion esul s in mo e de ail. We
use da a om he pos -elec ion su ey o he Ge man Longi udinal Elec ion S udy
2017 o es ou explana o y model. In a fi s s ep, we in es iga e possible composi ion
e ec s. To ha end, we compa e he wo ypes o o e s in e ms o ac o s ha influence
bo h o ing ype and pa y choice in o de o shed ligh on he ques ion o whe he pos al
o e s a e simply a di e en subse o he elec o a e han elec ion day o e s. Second, we
examine which pa ies benefi om which ac o s associa ed wi h an inc eased p ob-
abili y o pos al o ing. In a hi d s ep, we analyse and compa e he decision c i e ia
o o e unc ions o he wo g oups o o e s o see whe he associa ion e ec s can
help explain he di e en elec ion esul s in 2017.
The esul s o ou analyses sugges ha pos al and elec ion day o e s do no di e
subs an ially om each o he wi h ega ds o he c i e ia hey apply o o e choice. The
di e ences in o e sha es be ween he wo g oups seem composi ional in na u e: As
some sociodemog aphic cha ac e is ics a e ela ed o bo h an inc eased p obabili y o
pos al o ing and o an inc eased p obabili y o o ing o pa icula pa ies, hese
pa ies pe o m be e among pos al han elec ion day o e s.
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 603
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POSTAL VOTING IN GERMANY, STATE OF RESEARCH AND
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The significance o pos al o ing in Ge many and o Ge man o e s can be illus a ed
by looking a how i has been used since i s in oduc ion in 1957. Figu e 1 shows his
de elopmen . S a ing a fi e pe cen in 1957, he p opo ion o o e s who cas hei
o es by mail be o e elec ion day
1
(black line) ose con inuously un il 1980, ell sligh ly
un il 1990, and has isen again in e e y elec ion e e since. In 2008, he necessi y o
jus i y he use o pos al o ing was abandoned. A e wa ds, he p opo ion o pos al
o e s ose o one-fi h in he 2009 Bundes ag elec ions, hen again o one-qua e in
2013, and in he 2017 Bundes ag elec ions nea ly 30 pe cen o o e s used he
pos al o e op ion. As a esul , pos al o ing should by now be conside ed an essen ial
pa o Ge man elec o al law. Ano he in e es ing finding becomes appa en when com-
pa ing he de elopmen o he p opo ion o pos al o e s among all o e s wi h he
de elopmen o he p opo ion among all eligible o e s ep esen ed by he g ey line.
The wo lines emain close un il eunifica ion bu di e ge a e wa ds. Be ween 2002
and 2009, o example, he p opo ion o pos al o e s among eligible o e s emained
s able a a ound 15 pe cen , i.e. he e was nei he a decline in pa icipa ion no an
inc ease in pa icipa ion among pos al o e s. Howe e , he e was an inc ease in he p o-
po ion o all o e s, as o e u nou had allen. Thus, he compa a i ely weake
inc ease in he g ey line indica es ha o e u nou among pos al o e s has inc eased
since 1990 ela i e o o e u nou a elec ion day.
FIGURE 1
DEVELOPMENT OF POSTAL VOTING IN GERMANY
Sou ce: Bundeswahllei e (2017b).
604 GERMAN POLITICS
The significance o pos al o ing in Ge many in gene al and o he inc ease in usage
in pa icula becomes e en clea e when compa ing elec ion esul s be ween elec ion
day o e s and pos al o e s. Figu e 2 shows he di e ence index o he dis ibu ions
o lis o es be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s since eunifica ion. Fo each Bun-
des ag elec ion, he absolu e di e ences in elec ion esul s be ween pos al and elec ion
day o e s we e added up o all pa ies and subsequen ly di ided by wo (since he
gains o one pa y a e he losses o he o he ). While he wo elec o al g oups became
mo e dissimila wi h ega d o hei o e choices om elec ion o elec ion un il 1998,
hey con e ged in he 2002 elec ion. Since hen, howe e , he e has again been an
inc ease in he di e si y index, wi h –as in he case o usage o he pos al o ing
op ion – he highes alue in he 2017 Bundes ag elec ions. This means ha , a leas
since he 2002 Bundes ag elec ions, pos al and elec ion day o e s inc easingly di e
in hei pa y p e e ences, wi h he di e ences in he 2017 Bundes ag elec ions being
e en la ge han in 1998 and hus ep esen ing a new maximum.
Consequen ly, in Figu e 3, we ake a close look a he 2017 dis ibu ion o o es as
well as a which pa ies we e a ec ed by he di e ences in o ing decisions be ween
pos al o e s and ballo box o e s. Fo mos pa ies, he p opo ions o second o es
a e a he simila wi h di e ences be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s usually
below wo pe cen age poin s. Howe e , in he case o he Ch is ian democ a s (CDU/
CSU) and he igh -wing populis A D, mo e ele an di e ences can be disce ned.
While he CDU/CSU won 36.4 pe cen o pos al o e s, i only gained 31.5 pe cen
among elec ion day o e s (5 pe cen age poin s less). The opposi e is ue o he A D:
FIGURE 2
DIFFERENCES IN THE VOTING BEHAVIOUR OF POSTAL AND BALLOT BOX VOTERS SINCE
1990
Sou ce: own calcula ions based on da a om he Bundeswahllei e (2015,2017a).
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 605

i only ecei ed sligh ly less han en pe cen o he second o es o pos al o e s bu was
able o secu e almos 14 pe cen o he o es on elec ion day –a plus o 4.3 pe cen age
poin s, co esponding o abou 45 pe cen . The CDU/CSU hus benefi ed om he pos al
o ing op ion. Albei a a lowe le el, he same is ue o he FDP and he G eens. The
SPD and he Le we e sligh ly mo e success ul among elec ion day o e s.
2
Ano he poin o conside when assessing ( he significance o ) pos al o ing is he
iming o he elec ion decision. Ob iously, people who cas hei o e weeks be o e
he elec ion canno ake in o accoun he de elopmen s o he las days o he elec ion
campaign. E en s sho ly be o e he elec ion, such as changes in he poli ical si ua ion,
e.g. new in o ma ion om polls and ela ed s a egic o ing calcula ions o mobilisa ion
s a egies o he pa ies, can hus no longe influence pos al o e s’elec ion decision (c .
Sheppa d and Beau ega d 2018). Based on hose conside a ions, Figu e 4 shows he
ex en o which he wo o e g oups di e wi h ega d o he ime o he elec ion
decision in 2017.
Fo almos wo- hi ds o bo h g oups, he elec ion decision was made a long ime o
mon hs ago –well be o e a pos al o e was possible. Almos a qua e o elec ion day
o e s made hei decision in he las ew days be o e o on elec ion day i sel , whe eas
his was he case o less han 14 pe cen o pos al o e s. Con e sely, significan ly
mo e pos al o e s han elec ion day o e s made hei decision in he weeks be o e
he elec ion (24 compa ed o 16 pe cen ). On a e age, elec ion day o e s decide
la e han pos al o e s which pa y o o e o . The o me a e, hus, mo e suscep ible
FIGURE 3
SECOND VOTE SHARES BY VOTER TYPE IN THE 2017 BUNDESTAG ELECTIONS
Sou ce: Bundeswahllei e (2017a).
606 GERMAN POLITICS
o e en s in he las days o he campaign whe eas hose e en s canno ha e an impac
on a ballo al eady cas , o cou se.
In sho , a la ge (and g owing) p opo ion o o e s in Ge many make use o he
pos al o ing op ion. They do no only di e om ballo box o e s in e ms o hei
o ing beha iou , bu also end o a i e a hei o e choice ea lie . While pos al
o e s a e an empi ically ele an phenomenon, he e has been su p isingly li le
esea ch on his segmen o he elec o a e in Ge many so a . In e na ionally, he e is
an es ablished esea ch s and on op ions ha acili a e he ac o o ing o educe i s
cos s by enabling ci izens o cas hei o e in ad ance and ou side he polling s a ion
–gene ally e e ed o as ea ly o con enience o ing. No ma i e a gumen s o such
o ing op ions usually e e o he assump ion ha hey inc ease o e u nou and
hus s eng hen he equali y p inciple o democ acy, since ci izens who, o example
due o employmen o lack o mobili y canno cas hei o e a he polling s a ion on
elec ion day, a e enabled o do so by o he means. Fu he mo e, ad oca es poin ou
ha con enience o ing op ions can coun e ac he social selec i i y o elec o al pa ici-
pa ion, since lowe cos s would encou age hose segmen s o he popula ion ha would
o he wise end o s ay away om he elec ion (G onke e al. 2008). Empi ical s udies
es ing hese assump ions sugges ha he in oduc ion o absen ee and ad ance
o ing does indeed inc ease o e u nou a he na ional and sub-na ional le el (e.g.
Ga ne 2018; Goodman and S okes 2018; Luechinge , Rosinge , and S u ze 2007;
Magleby 1987; Sou hwell 2000). So a , howe e , he e is no e idence ha con enience
FIGURE 4
TIME OF THE ELECTION DECISION BY VOTER TYPE
Sou ce: GLES pos -elec ion c oss-sec ion su ey 2017 (Roß eu sche e al., ‘Pos -Elec ion C oss Sec ion,’2018).
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 607
o ing educes he social selec i i y o o ing. Some s udies find no o only mino
di e ences in he composi ion o p esence and con enience o e s wi h ega d o pa -
icipa ion- ele an socio-demog aphic cha ac e is ics (McAllis e and Mulle 2018;
Neeley and Richa dson 2001). O he s udies show ha absen ee o ad ance o ing
op ions a e inc easingly used by he socio-economically be e -o , mo e highly edu-
ca ed and poli ically in e es ed people (Dyck and Gimpel 2005; Elle mann 2004;
Gieble 2014; Lich eblau and Wagne 2019; McAllis e and Mulle 2018). Such obse -
a ions sugges ha con enience o ing migh e en inc ease a he han dec ease social
selec i i y (Be insky 2005), implying ha hey migh in ac ail o achie e he desi ed
no ma i e goals.
Bu how easonable a e he gene al no ma i e expec a ions ega ding pos al o ing
in he con ex o Ge many? Due o he compa a i ely s ic equi emen s o applying
o and filling in pos al ballo documen s, i does no seem plausible o expec a com-
pensa o y e ec agains he social selec i i y o o e u nou . No su p isingly, Elle -
mann (2004) concludes in he s udy o he 2002 Bundes ag elec ions ha pos al
o ing is mos widesp ead among people wi h high o mal educa ion, high p o essional
s a us (ci il se an s and he sel -employed) and om u ban esiden ial a eas. Gieble
(2014) comes o simila conclusions in his s udy on pos al o e s in he 2013 ede al
elec ions.
Fo a no ma i e e alua ion o pos al o ing in Ge many, i is necessa y o ask how
he di e en elec ion esul s o pos al and ballo box o e s come abou .
3
Wha is he
di e ence be ween pos al o e s and ballo box o e s in Ge many? Figu e 5 illus a es
he explana o y model o di e ences in elec ion esul s be ween pos al o e s and elec-
ion day o e s which o ms he basis o his pape . As we know om Figu es 2 and 3,
he elec ion esul s a e unequal. On he one hand, his can be caused by composi ion
e ec s o o e cha ac e is ics; his is why knowledge o possible di e ences
be ween o e g oups wi h ega d o he ac o s influencing he elec ion decision is el-
e an : I di e ences can be ound in he cha ac e is ics ha de e mine pa y choice, hen
di e en elec ion esul s a e ine i able. I , o example, people wi h a mo e le is
FIGURE 5
EXPLANATORY MODEL FOR DIFFERENT ELECTION RESULTS OF POSTAL AND ELECTION
DAY VOTERS
608 GERMAN POLITICS
poli ical leaning inc easingly used pos al o ing, i would no be su p ising i le -wing
pa ies sco ed be e among pos al o e s.
On he o he hand, esea ch on o e he e ogenei y shows ha ci izens use di e en
decision-making s a egies: While o some pe sons economic policy issues can be deci-
si e o hei o e, o he s a e mo e s ongly guided by hei assessmen o he leading
poli icians. Thus, o e s wi h iden ical p e e ences migh in he end suppo di e en
pa ies (Blumens iel and Plischke 2015; Ri e s 1988). In his line o esea ch, Ba le
(2005) showed o he B i ish case ha mo e poli ically sophis ica ed o e s ely
mo e s ongly on hei e alua ion o policy issues han on he e alua ion o he poli ical
pe sonnel. The c ucial poin in ligh o ou ques ion is hus ha o e g oups ha e he -
e ogeneous mo i es o o ing, in o he wo ds, ha hei o e unc ions a y. Acco d-
ingly, i seems plausible o ask whe he he di e en pa y s eng hs be ween pos al and
elec ion day o e s (also) esul om hem applying di e en decision c i e ia o o e
unc ions. The e o e, in he ollowing we will also ask o wha ex en he di e ences
in pa y choice can be a ibu ed o associa ion e ec s. These associa ion e ec s a e
shown in Figu e 5 by he e ical a ows poin ing upwa ds. E en i he dis ibu ion
o o e cha ac e is ics ha a e po en ially ele an o pa y choice was iden ical
be ween elec ion day and pos al o e s, he e ogeneous decision c i e ia could help
explain he di e en elec ion esul s in he wo g oups. Re e ing o he example
abo e, le us assume ha he le - igh a i udes be ween he wo g oups do no di e
subs an ially and ha poli ical a i udes a e gene ally simila . I pos al o e s ely
mo e s ongly on long- e m, s able ideological le - igh posi ions o hei o e
choice, while o elec ion day o e s, he e alua ion o op candida es is mo e ele an ,
his migh lead o di e ences in pa y s eng hs. In he end, i is also possible ha bo h
he o e unc ions and he dis ibu ion o cha ac e is ics a y be ween he wo g oups o
o e s.
Conside ing he di e ences be ween elec ion day and pos al o e s ega ding he
iming o hei o e choice (Figu e 4), i seems plausible ha hose di e ences a e a
po en ial sou ce o bo h composi ional as well as associa ional di e ences. I e en s
sho ly be o e elec ion day, e.g. poli ical scandals, d ama ically change he e alua ion
o he incumben , we should expec composi ional di e ences ega ding he e alua ion
o he incumben –be e e alua ions o pos al o e s as many o hem al eady decided
weeks be o e he elec ion and wo se e alua ions o elec ion day o e s many o whom
decided only sho ly be o e he elec ion day –leading o di e ences in o e sha es
be ween he wo g oups. I majo ex e nal e en s, such as a nuclea disas e , happen
in he las days be o e he elec ion and change he ele ance o ce ain mo i es o elec-
o al beha iou , we should disco e di e ences in he associa ion e ec s –in his case
g ea e ele ance o a i udes on nuclea powe o elec ion day o e s han o pos al
o e s who al eady made hei choice. Consequen ly, he iming o he o e choice
migh ha e a significan impac on he dis ibu ion o ele an cha ac e is ics and on
he o e unc ion o pos al and elec ion day o e s.
4
DATA AND METHOD
To in es iga e he causes o di e en elec ion esul s be ween pos al and elec ion day
o e s, we use da a om he pos -elec ion c oss-sec ion su ey 2017 o he Ge man
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 609
models also e eal simila a e age ma ginal e ec s o ou fi e p edic o s o bo h o e
g oups (see Figu e A1 and Table A5 in he Appendix C). The only di e ence conce ns
he ele ance o e ospec i e go e nmen pe o mance e alua ions: While i eaches he
usual fi e-pe cen significance h eshold o elec ion day o e s, i does no o pos al
o e s (wi h simila poin es ima es o he e ec ’s s eng h). The di e ence is,
howe e , (a) qui e small and (b) possibly d i en by he lowe numbe o pos al
o e s (and he esul ing la ge s anda d e o s), which is why i should no be o e -
in e p e ed. The e o e, ou conclusion wi h ega d o he di e ences in he decision c i-
e ia is nega i e –pos al and elec ion day o e s base hei pa y choice on a simila se
o c i e ia.
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The significance o pos al o ing in Ge many has clea ly inc eased in ecen decades. By
now, almos a hi d o he o e s cas hei ballo be o e elec ion day. Mo eo e , he
di e ences in elec o al beha iou be ween pos al o e s and elec ion day o e s a e con-
side able wi h ega ds o some pa ies as he sha e o second o es di e s by up o fi e
pe cen age poin s be ween he o e g oups. Agains his backg ound, i seems pa icu-
la ly su p ising ha he e a e only ew empi ical-analy ical s udies on pos al o ing in
Ge many, making he pos al o e a la gely unknown being. The in e na ional li e a u e
TABLE 4
RESULTS OF CONDITIONAL LOGIT MODELS FOR VOTE
CHOICE (LOGIT COEFFICIENTS)
Vo e choices
PID 1.75***
(0.17)
Le /Righ dis ance −0.04***
(0.01)
E alua ion op candida es 0.34***
(0.03)
P oblem sol ing compe ence 0.76***
(0.11)
E alua ion go e nmen pe o mance 0.07***
(0.02)
Pos al o e x
PID −0.14
(0.31)
Le /Righ dis ance −0.02
(0.02)
E alua ion op candida es 0.11
(0.07)
P oblem sol ing compe ence 0.19
(0.21)
E alua ion go e nmen pe o mance −0.03
(0.04)
Obse a ions 8,401
Pseudo R-squa ed 0.47
No e: S anda d e o s in pa en heses. ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01,
*p< 0.05.
616 GERMAN POLITICS

on ea ly o ing ocuses p ima ily on possible e ec s on o e u nou –and finds mixed
esul s. As a as we a e awa e, he e is ha dly any esea ch dealing wi h he ques ion
p esen ed in his pape as o how he di e ences in o e sha es be ween pos al and elec-
ion day o e s can be explained. Fo his pu pose, we examined he wo ypes o o e s
wi h espec o bo h, po en ially di e en cha ac e is ics (composi ion e ec s) and
po en ially di e en mo i es o pa y choice (associa ion e ec s). Based on su ey
da a om he GLES, we conclude ha pos al and elec ion day o e s do no di e sub-
s an ially om each o he wi h ega ds o he c i e ia hey apply o o e choice. The
o e unc ions o bo h g oups ha dly a y, hence, associa ion e ec s canno con ibu e
o an explana ion o he di e en elec ion ou comes. Howe e , he composi ion o he
o e g oups wi h ega ds o ce ain cha ac e is ics di e s. Among pos al o e s, Wes
Ge mans, economically be e -o , sel -employed people as well as pensione s and
pupils/s uden s a e o e ep esen ed. Since hese cha ac e is ics a e also ela ed o
pa y choice, we can conclude ha o some ex en he di e ences in o ing beha iou
s em om hose composi ional di e ences.
The poli ical implica ions o he inc eased use o he pos al o ing op ion a e clea
and se ious. I pa ies and candida es a e no longe able o win o e a la ge pa o he
elec o a e in he las days o weeks o he elec ion campaign, hey need o add ess hose
o e s ea lie . Fo his eason, among o he s, a ge ing becomes mo e demanding o
pa ies in Ge many. In addi ion, pos al o e s a e no able o conside he e en s o
he final phase o he elec ion campaign o hei o e choice. While his migh no
ha e been ele an o explaining he di e ences in second o e sha es be ween elec ion
day and pos al o e s in he Ge man pa liamen a y elec ions in 2017, he ea lie iming
o he o e choice o he la e se s limi s o sho - e m e ospec i e o ing in case o e.g.
poli ical scandals du ing he las days o he campaign.
8
Mo eo e , he simila i y o o e unc ions o pos al and elec ion day o e s implies
ha he ype o ballo used did no change he o e all elec ion esul : As bo h o e
ypes elied on a simila se o e alua ion c i e ia, o ing beha iou i sel seems no
o ha e been a ec ed by pos al o ing. Ra he , we obse e a sel -selec ion o
ce ain g oups o ci izens in o absen ee o ing, bu he ype o ballo i sel does no
impac pa y choice.
On he basis o ou p elimina y esul s –especially conside ing he mode a e expla-
na o y powe o ou model p edic ing he o e ype –we see need o u he esea ch
in h ee di ec ions: Fi s ly, exis ing s udies analysing he easons why people decide o
o e by mail ha e p ima ily ocused on he ce ain y o o e choice –people wi h
fixed, s ong pa y p e e ences can cas hei o es wi hou any u he need o in o -
ma ion p o ided by he elec ion campaign. Howe e , many elec ion day o e s a e
ce ain abou hei decision mon hs be o e he elec ion akes place, oo. This may help
explain he (in some cases) small di e ences be ween g oups (bo h ega ding hei cha ac-
e is ics and hei o e unc ions). He e, u he di e en ia ion is needed in u u e esea ch.
Secondly, aspec s o mobili y, such as he dis ance o he polling s a ion in combina ion
wi h a pe son’s physical condi ion could no be adequa ely analysed so a . Simila ly,
aspec s o con enience, such as he use o pos al o ing due o possible spon aneous holi-
days o he a oidance o po en ial collisions o planned ac i i ies, could no be in es i-
ga ed on he basis o exis ing da a. Thi dly, he causal mechanisms a e no equally
ob ious o canno be su ficien ly heo ised in all cases. Ques ions conce ning he
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 617
easons as o why, o example, Wes Ge mans use pos al o ing much mo e equen ly
han Eas Ge mans, ha e no been a he cen e o p e ious s udies. In iew o he no ma-
i e, p ac ical-poli ical and poli ical-scien ific ele ance o he subjec , i is wo h opening
up his field o esea ch sys ema ically along hese sugges ed lines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like o hank all pa icipan s o hei eedback. Fu he mo e, we a e g a e ul
o A ne Ca s ens and Lena Röllicke o hei help p epa ing he manusc ip and o he
anonymous e iewe s o hei use ul sugges ions o imp o e he pape .
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No po en ial conflic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho (s).
FUNDING
This wo k was suppo ed by Deu sche Fo schungsgemeinscha : [g an numbe
90948644].
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Aiko Wagne is a esea ch ellow a he WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e in he
depa men ‘Democ acy & Democ a iza ion’. He is a membe o he Ge man Longi udinal
Elec ion S udy (GLES).
Josephine Lich eblau is a esea ch ellow a he WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e in
he depa men ‘Democ acy & Democ a iza ion’. She is associa ed wi h he Ge man
Longi udinal Elec ion S udy (GLES).
NOTES
1. Following he Fede al Re u ning O fice (Bundeswahllei e ), we subsume all ypes o ea ly o ing as
pos al o ing.
2. The di e ences in second o e sha es be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s in he sample a e based
on a e e y simila o hose based on he o ficial elec ion esul s epo ed by he Bundeswahllei e (c .
Appendix A).
3. While Elle mann (2004) only men ions he di e ences in elec ion esul s be ween pos al and elec ion day
o e s, Gieble (2014) concludes ha he socio-demog aphic di e ences he ound be ween he g oups
alone can ha dly explain he di e en o e sha es.
4. Using da a om he 2017 GLES’Rolling C oss Sec ion (Roß eu sche e al., ‘Rolling C oss Sec ion Cam-
paign S udy,’2018), we es ed whe he he di e ences in he o e sha es o CDU/CSU and A D be ween
pos al and elec ion day o e s a e simply a unc ion o he iming o he decision making. The e o e, we
eg essed indi idual o e in en ion on he numbe o days un il he elec ion day o he las mon h o he
campaign. The esul s e eal ha he numbe o days un il he elec ion did no ha e an e ec on he o e
in en ions o hese wo pa ies. We ake his as an indica ion ha he be e esul o he A D among elec-
ion day o e s compa ed o pos al o e s is no a me e eflec ion o he pa y’s posi i e end in he las
weeks and days o he campaign and ice e sa o he CDU/CSU (c . Appendix B).
5. We use egional and socio-s uc u al pos -s a ifica ion weigh s in all ou analyses.
6. The sis e pa ies CDU and CSU a e ea ed as one pa y.
7. Al hough s ongly co ela ed wi h occupa ion (esp. pensione s and pupils/s uden s), we included age as a
con ol a iable in a sepa a e model, oo (c . Table A3 in he Appendix C). Howe e , including he age o a
618 GERMAN POLITICS
esponden has nei he a significan impac on he likelihood o o ing by mail no does i change he mag-
ni ude o significance o one o he o he explana o y a iables.
8. Howe e , he same also applies o elec ion day o e s who make hei decision on which pa y o o e o
long be o e elec ion day.
ORCID
Josephine Lich eblau h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-9699-6791
REFERENCES
Ba le, John. 2005.“Homogeneous Models and He e ogeneous Vo e s.”Poli ical
S udies 53 (4): 653–675.
Be insky, Adam J. 2005.“The Pe e se Consequences o Elec o al Re o m in he
Uni ed S a es.”Ame ican Poli ics Resea ch 33 (4): 471–491. doi:10.1177/
1532673X04269419.
Blumens iel, Jan E ic, and Thomas Plischke. 2015.“Changing Mo i a ions, Time o he
Vo ing Decision, and Sho -Te m Vola ili y –The Dynamics o Vo e He e ogen-
ei y.”Elec o al S udies 37 (1): 28–40. doi:10.1016/j.elec s ud.2014.11.003.
Budge, Ian, and Da id Fa lie. 1983.Explaining and P edic ing Elec ions: Issue E ec s
and Pa y S a egies in Twen y-Th ee Democ acies. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bundeswahllei e [Fede al Re u ning O fice ]. 2015.Wahl zum Deu schen Bundes ag
am 22. Sep embe 2013, He 5, Teil 2. Tex liche Auswe ung (Rep äsen a i e
Wahls a is ik und Wahlbezi kss a is ik). Wiesbaden: S a is isches Bundesam .
h ps://www.bundeswahllei e .de/dam/jc /a5dccee9-06a -4932-a1a9-
499505c0b818/b w13_he 5-2.pd .
Bundeswahllei e [Fede al Re u ning O fice ]. 2017a.E gebnisse in den U nen- und
B ie wahlbezi ken nach Lände n.h ps://www.bundeswahllei e .de/en/dam/jc /
dd7 37e-90d0-4306-b 62-07a5400c1 ad/b w17_e gebnisse_bezi ksa .pd .
Bundeswahllei e [Fede al Re u ning O fice ]. 2017b.Pos al ballo . h ps://www.
bundeswahllei e .de/en/se ice/glossa /b/b ie wahl.h ml.
Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Con e se, Wa en Mille , and Donald E. S okes. 1960.The
Ame ican Vo e . New Yo k: Wiley.
Dal on, Russell J. 1996.Ci izen Poli ics: Public Opinion and Poli ical Pa ies in
Ad anced Indus ial Democ acies. Cha ham, NJ: Cha ham House.
Downs, An hony. 1957.An Economic Theo y o Democ acy. New Yo k: Ha pe and
Row.
Dyck, Joshua J., and James G. Gimpel. 2005.“Dis ance, Tu nou , and he Con enience
o Vo ing.”Social Science Qua e ly 86 (3): 531–548.
Elle mann, Sil ia. 2004.“Die bedeu ung de B ie wähle bei de Bundes agswahl
2002.”In Die Bundes agswahl 2002. Analysen de Wahle gebnisse und des Wahlk-
amp es, edi ed by F ank B e schneide , Jan an De h, and Edel aud Rolle , 249–
275. Wiesbaden: VS Ve lag.
Fio ina, Mo is P. 1981.Re ospec i e Vo ing in Ame ican Na ional Elec ions. New
Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess.
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 619
Ga ne , Holly Ann. 2018.“Ad ance Vo ing Wi h Same-Day Regis a ion: The Impac
on Tu nou in New Zealand.”Poli ical Science 70 (2): 102–116. doi:10.1080/
00323187.2018.1561154.
Gelman, And ew. 2008.“Scaling Reg ession Inpu s by Di iding by Two S anda d
De ia ions.”S a is ics in Medicine 27 (15): 2865–2873. doi:10.1002/sim.3107.
Gieble , Heiko. 2014.“Die B ie wähle .”In Zwischen F agmen ie ung und Konzen a-
ion: Die Bundes agswahl 2013, edi ed by Rüdige Schmi -Beck, Hans Ra inge ,
Sig id Roß eu sche , Be nha d Weßels, Ch is o Wol , Ina Biebe , Manuela S. Blu-
menbe g, e al., 169–177. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Goodman, Nicole, and Leah C. S okes. 2018.“Reducing he Cos o Vo ing: An E alu-
a ion o In e ne Vo ing’s E ec on Tu nou .”B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science,
1–13. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000849.
G onke, Paul, E a Galanes-Rosenbaum, Pe e A. Mille , and Daniel To ey. 2008.
“Con enience Vo ing.”Annual Re iew o Poli ical Science 11 (1): 437–455.
doi:10.1146/annu e .polisci.11.053006.190912.
K ause, We ne , Ma cus Spi le , and Aiko Wagne . 2017.A ak ion und Repulsion.
Anhänge Innen ech s- und linkspopulis ische Pa eien im eu opäischen Ve gle-
ich: Le ia han Sonde band 32 | 2017.
Lich eblau, Josephine, and Aiko Wagne . 2019.“Die B ie wähle .”In Zwischen Pola -
isie ung und Beha ung: Die Bundes agswahl 2017, edi ed by Sig id Roß eu sche ,
Rüdige Schmi -Beck, Ha ald Schoen, Be nha d Weßels, and Ch is o Wol ,
169–179. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Luechinge , Simon, My a Rosinge , and Alois S u ze . 2007.“The Impac o Pos al
Vo ing on Pa icipa ion: E idence o Swi ze land.”Swiss Poli ical Science
Re iew 13 (2): 167–202. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007. b00075.x.
Magleby, Da id B. 1987.“Pa icipa ion in Mail Ballo Elec ions.”The Wes e n Poli i-
cal Qua e ly 40 (1): 79–91. doi:10.2307/448554.
McAllis e , Ian, and Damon Mulle . 2018.“Ea ly Vo ing, Elec ion Campaigning and
Pa y Ad an age in Aus alia.”Elec o al S udies 52: 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.
elec s ud.2018.02.003.
Neeley, G an W., and Lillia d E. Richa dson. 2001.“Who is Ea ly Vo ing? An Indi id-
ual Le el Examina ion.”The Social Science Jou nal 38 (3): 381–392. doi:10.1016/
S0362-3319(01)00135-5.
Ri e s, Douglas. 1988.“He e ogenei y in Models o Elec o al Choice.”Ame ican
Jou nal o Poli ical Science 32: 737–757.
Roß eu sche , Sig id, and Philipp Sche e . 2014.“Ideologie.”In Zwischen F agmen ie -
ung und Konzen a ion: Die Bundes agswahl 2013, edi ed by Rüdige Schmi -
Beck, Hans Ra inge , Sig id Roß eu sche , Be nha d Weßels, Ch is o Wol , Ina
Biebe , and Manuela S. Blumenbe g, e al., 213–223. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Roß eu sche , Sig id, Rüdige Schmi -Beck, Ha ald Schoen, Be nha d Weßels, Ch is-
o Wol , and Alexande S aud . 2018.Rolling C oss Sec ion Campaign S udy
(GLES 2017): GESIS Da a A chi e, Cologne. ZA6801 Da a file e sion 3.0.1.
doi:10.4232/1.13051.
Roß eu sche , Sig id, Rüdige Schmi -Beck, Ha ald Schoen, Be nha d Weßels, Ch is-
o Wol , Aiko Wagne , Reinhold Melche , and Heiko Gieble . 2018.Pos -Elec ion
620 GERMAN POLITICS
C oss Sec ion (GLES 2017): GESIS Da a A chi e, Cologne. ZA6801 Da a file
e sion 4.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.13138.
Schä e , Anne, and R. Schmi -Beck. 2014.“Pa eibindungen.”In Zwischen F agmen-
ie ung und Konzen a ion: Die Bundes agswahl 2013, edi ed by Rüdige Schmi -
Beck, Hans Ra inge , Sig id Roß eu sche , Be nha d Weßels, Ch is o Wol , Ina
Biebe , Manuela S. Blumenbe g, e al., 203–211. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Sheppa d, Jill, and Ka ine Beau ega d. 2018.“Ea ly Vo ing in Aus alia: The Cos s and
Benefi s o Con enience.”Poli ical Science 70 (2): 117–134. doi:10.1080/
00323187.2018.1561155.
Sou hwell, P iscilla L. 2000.“The E ec o All-Mail Elec ions on Vo e Tu nou .”
Ame ican Poli ics Qua e ly 28 (1): 72–79. doi:10.1177/1532673X00028001004.
Wagne , Aiko, and Be nha d Weßels. 2012.“Pa ies and Thei Leade s. Does I Ma e
How They Ma ch? The Ge man Gene al Elec ions 2009 in Compa ison.”Elec o al
S udies 31 (1): 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.elec s ud.2011.06.007.
Weßels, Be nha d. 2014.“Wahl e hal en soziale G uppen.”In Zwischen F agmen ie -
ung und Konzen a ion: Die Bundes agswahl 2013, edi ed by Rüdige Schmi -
Beck, Hans Ra inge , Sig id Roß eu sche , Be nha d Weßels, Ch is o Wol , Ina
Biebe , Manuela S. Blumenbe g, e al., 187–202. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1
DIFFERENCES IN SECOND VOTE SHARES BETWEEN POSTAL AND ELECTION DAY
VOTERS IN THE ESTIMATION SAMPLE (BASED ON SELF-REPORTED VOTE CHOICE)
No e: Di e ences in pe cen age poin s. Nega i e alues depic a highe o e sha e among pos al han
elec ion day o e s.
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 621

APPENDIX B
In o de o es whe he he conside able di e ences in he o e sha es o CDU/CSU and
A D be ween pos al and elec ion day o e s a e simply a unc ion o he iming o he
decision making, we eg essed indi idual o e in en ion on he numbe o days un il he
elec ion day o he las mon h o he campaign using da a om he GLES Rolling C oss
Sec ion Campaign S udy. Table A2 displays he esul s. The ime a iable nei he has an
s a is ically significan e ec on he likelihood o o e o he CDU/CSU no he like-
lihood o o e o he A D. Hence, i seems unlikely ha he A D’s be e esul and
he CDU/CSU’s wo se esul among elec ion day o e s was me ely due o pa ies’posi-
i e o nega i e ends in he las weeks and days o he campaign.
APPENDIX C
TABLE B1
LOGIT MODELS FOR PREDICTING VOTE CHOICE FOR THE CDU/CSU AND AFD BY THE
NUMBER OF DAYS UNTIL THE ELECTION (LOGIT COEFFICIENTS)
CDU/CSU A D
Field day −0.01
(0.01)
−0.01
(0.02)
Cons an −0.18
(0.46)
−0.33
(0.70)
Obse a ions 2,570 2,570
Pseudo R-squa ed 0.00 0.00
No e: S anda d e o s in pa en heses. ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05. Socio- and egional-s uc u al
weigh s applied.
Sou ce: GLES olling c oss-sec ion su ey 2017 (Roß eu sche e al., ‘Rolling C oss Sec ion Campaign
S udy,’2018).
TABLE C1
RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION PREDICTING THE VOTING TYPE (POSTAL VOTING = 1)
Main model Main model including age
Age –0.23
(0.27)
Male −0.27
(0.15)
−0.27
(0.15)
Wes 0.40*
(0.17)
0.40*
(0.17)
Occupa ional s a us ( e e ence: wo ke s)
Ci il se an s/whi e colla 0.49
(0.32)
0.51
(0.32)
Sel -employed 1.11**
(0.40)
1.09**
(0.40)
Pensione s 0.78*
(0.31)
0.66*
(0.32)
Pupils/s uden s 0.96*
(0.43)
1.08*
(0.45)
Educa ion ( e e ence: high)
Low 0.10
(0.21)
0.05
(0.22)
Con inued
622 GERMAN POLITICS
TABLE C1
CONTINUED.
Main model Main model including age
Medium 0.07
(0.17)
0.05
(0.17)
Income 0.33*
(0.13)
0.32*
(0.13)
U ban esiden ial a ea 0.19
(0.15)
0.19
(0.15)
Chu ch a endance ( e e ence: ne e )
Once/a ew imes a yea 0.06
(0.15)
0.05
(0.15)
Once a mon h/mo e o en −0.12
(0.23)
−0.13
(0.23)
Union membe 0.36
(0.21)
0.36
(0.21)
Pola i y o le - igh posi ion −0.08
(0.16)
−0.08
(0.16)
PID 0.01
(0.18)
0.00
(0.18)
Poli ical in e es
(Ve y) s ong −0.13
(0.22)
−0.12
(0.22)
Weak/none 0.02
(0.16)
0.01
(0.16)
Sa is ac ion wi h democ acy ( e e ence: nei he /no )
(Ve y) sa isfied −0.10
(0.31)
−0.08
(0.31)
No e y/no a all sa isfied 0.31
(0.18)
0.31
(0.18)
Cons an −2.36***
(0.42)
−2.60***
(0.50)
Obse a ions 1,319 1,318
Pseudo R-squa ed 0.04 0.04
No e: Logi coe ficien s. S anda d e o s in pa en heses. ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05.
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 623
TABLE C3
RESULTS OF SEPARATE CONDITIONAL LOGIT MODELS PREDICTING PARTY CHOICE
Elec ion day o e s Pos al o e s
PID 0.14***
(0.17)
1.61***
(0.27)
Le - igh dis ance −0.04***
(0.01)
−0.07**
(0.02)
E alua ion o op candida es 0.34***
(0.03)
0.45***
(0.06)
P oblem sol ing compe ence 0.76***
(0.11)
0.95***
(0.18)
E alua ion go e nmen pe o mance 0.07***
(0.02)
0.04
(0.04)
Obse a ions 5,928 2,419
Pseudo R-squa ed 0.46 0.51
No e: Logi coe ficien s. S anda d e o s in pa en heses. ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05.
TABLE C2
RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS PREDICTING PARTY CHOICE WITH REGION,
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND INCOME
CDU/CSU SPD Le G eens FDP A D
Wes 0.37*
(0.14)
0.42*
(0.17)
−0.97***
(0.19)
0.62**
(0.22)
0.07
(0.20)
−0.39
(0.21)
Occupa ional s a us ( e e ence: wo ke s)
Ci il se an s/whi e colla 0.19
(0.25)
0.17
(0.30)
−0.05
(0.34)
1.14*
(0.48)
0.44
(0.38)
−0.69*
(0.30)
Sel -employed 0.14
(0.35)
−1.29*
(0.55)
−0.02
(0.50)
1.54**
(0.54)
0.94*
(0.47)
−0.67
(0.48)
Pensione s 0.52*
(0.26)
0.51
(0.30)
−0.60
(0.36)
0.07
(0.50)
0.76*
(0.38)
−1.21***
(0.32)
Pupils/s uden s −0.78
(0.40)
−0.69
(0.44)
0.33
(0.42)
1.15*
(0.54)
0.28
(0.53)
−2.22***
(0.66)
Income 0.05
(0.13)
−0.28
(0.15)
0.28
(0.20)
0.33*
(0.17)
0.70***
(0.20)
−0.19
(0.21)
Cons an −1.98*
(0.89)
−0.05
(1.04)
−3.54**
(1.36)
−5.76***
(1.24)
−7.81***
(1.42)
−0.05
(1.45)
Obse a ions 1,573 1,573 1,573 1,573 1,573 1,573
Pseudo R-squa ed 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04
No e: Logi coe ficien s. Robus s anda d e o s in pa en heses. ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05.
624 GERMAN POLITICS
FIGURE C1
RESULTS OF SEPARATE CONDITIONAL LOGIT MODELS FOR VOTE CHOICE (AVERAGE
MARGINAL EFFECTS, AME)
GERMANY GOING POSTAL? 625