This study tests if deaths caused by the COVID-19 epidemic influence levels of electoral coordination. Specifically, it tests if a higher number of epidemic deaths strengthens in-group cohesion such that it narrows the votes towards M + 1 parties; or if it weakens in-group cohesion such that it disperses the votes away from M + 1 parties. The results from a multilevel statistical analysis of close to two-thousand observations from Mexico’s 2021 general election suggest that voters struggled to coordinate around a few common options that they believe can best weather the crisis. Moreover, the results from a subsequent time-series cross-sectional analysis provide some support to the expectation that coordination decreased compared to the previous elections.
AchenCHBartelsLM (2017) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
Acuña-ZegarraMASantana-CibrianMVelasco-HernandezJX (2020) Modeling behavioral change and COVID-19 containment in Mexico: a trade-off between lockdown and compliance. Mathematical Biosciences325: 2–9.
3.
Amorim NetoOCoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41: 149–174.
4.
AshworthSBueno de MesquitaEFriedenbergA (2018) Learning about voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science62(1): 37–54.
5.
Ayala‐CantuLFrattiniFFMorandoB (2021) Setting an example: Political leaders’ cues and compliance with health policies in the early stages of the Covid‐19 pandemic in Mexico. Latin American Policy12(2): 276–299.
6.
Balmori de la MiyarJRHoehn-VelascoLSilverio-MurilloA (2021). The U-shaped crime recovery during COVID-19: evidence from national crime rates in Mexico. 10(14), 1-23.
7.
BenitaFGasca-SanchezF (2021) The main factors influencing COVID-19 spread and deaths in Mexico: a comparison between phases I and II. Applied Geography134: 2–11.
8.
BerggrenNJordahlHPoutvaaraP (2017) The right look: conservative politicians look better and voters reward it. Journal of Public Economics146: 79–86.
9.
BisbeeJHonigD (2021) Flight to safety: COVID-induced changes in the intensity of status quo preference and voting behavior. American Political Science Review116(1): 70–86.
10.
BolDGianiMBlaisA, et al. (2021) The effect of COVID-19 lockdowns on political support: some good news for democracy?European Journal of Political Research60(2): 497–505.
11.
BustikovaLZechmeisterEJ (2017) Voting in new (er) democracies. In: ArzheimerKEvansJLewis-BlackMS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Electoral Behaviour. London: Sage, 92–133.
12.
CampelloDZuccoC (2016) Presidential success and the world economy. The Journal of Politics78(2): 589–602.
13.
CampelloDZuccoC (2020) The Volatility Curse: Exogenous Shocks and Representation in Resource-Rich Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CarlinRESingerMMZechmeisterEJ (2015) The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts. Ann Arbor: University of Michingan Press.
15.
ChewningJ, EGHarrellAM (1990) The effect of information load on decision makers’ cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task. Accounting, Organizations and Society15(6): 527–542.
CuartasJRoy (2020) AL American Journal of Community Psychology. The Latent Threat of Community Violence: Indirect Exposure to Local Homicides and Adolescents’ Mental Health in Colombia62(1–2): 219–231.
De VriesCEBakkerBNHoboltSB, et al. (2021) Crisis signaling: how Italy’s coronavirus lockdown affected incumbent support in other European countries. Political Science Research and Methods9: 451–467.
24.
DoddLC (1994) Political learning and political change: understanding development across time. In: DoddLCJillsonC (eds) The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations. New York City: Routledge, 131–165.
25.
DOF (2021) Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Mexico: Diario Oficial de la Federación.
26.
DražanováL (2019) Historical index of ethnic fractionalization (HIEF) dataset. Harvard Dataverse6: 6.
27.
EsaiassonPSohlbergJGhersettiM, et al. (2021) How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in government institutions and in unknown others – evidence from “the Swedish experiment. European Journal of Political Research60(3): 748–760.
28.
Fernández-NaviaTPolo-MuroETercero-LucasD (2021) Too afraid to vote? The effects of COVID-19 on voting behaviour. European Journal of Political Economy69: 1–21.
FunkeMSchularickMTrebeschC (2016) Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870–2014. European Economic Review88: 227–260.
31.
Gómez DíazA (2022) Still learning to make votes count? Electoral coordination in Mexico’s mixed-member electoral system. Election Law Journal21(3): 229–248.
32.
GoldfinchSTaplinRGauldR (2021) Trust in government increased during the Covid-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration80(3): 3–11.
33.
HausmanJA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica46(6): 1251–1271.
34.
HealyAJMalhotraNMoCH (2010) Irrelevant events affect voters' evaluations of government performance. PNAS107(29): 2804–12809.
35.
Hoehn-VelascoLSilverio-MurilloABalmoride la MiyarcJR (2021) The great crime recovery: crimes against women during, and after, the COVID-19 lockdown in Mexico. Economics and Human Biology41: 2–23.
36.
HollermanJRSchultzW (1998) Dopamine neurons report an error in the temporal prediction of reward during learning. Nature Neuroscience1(4): 304–309.
37.
HuddyL (2003) Group identity and political cohesion. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 511–558.
INEGI (2021) Censo Nacional de Gobiernos Municipales y Demarcaciones Territoriales de la Ciudad de México 2021. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Available at: https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/cngmd/2021/#tabulados.
INPI (2020) Población autoadscrita indígena y afromexicana e indígena en hogares con base en el Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020. campeche, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas. Available at: https://www.inpi.gob.mx/indicadores2020/.
42.
JacksonJEKollmanK (2011) Connecting micro- and macropartisanship. Political Analysis19: 503–518.
43.
KamCDRamosJM (2009) Joining and leaving the rally: understanding the surge and decline in presidential approval following 9/11. Public Opinion Quarterly72(4): 619–650.
44.
KingGKeohaneROVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45.
KlobovsL (2021) El impacto del coronavirus en la figura presidencial argentina. Revista Latinoamericana de Opinión Pública10(2): 15–38.
46.
KlüverHSpoonJ-J (2016) Who responds? Voters, parties and issue attention. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 633–654.
47.
KochJW (2000) Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates' ideological orientations?The Journal of Politics62(2): 414–429.
48.
KritzingerSFoucaultMLachatR, et al. (2021) ‘Rally round the flag’: the COVID-19 crisis and trust in the national government. West European Politics44(5-6): 1205–1231.
49.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) Effective number of parties: a measure with application to west europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
50.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2006) How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. New York City: Cambridge University Press.
51.
LehrerJ (2009) How We Decide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
52.
LeruthBStokerG (2020) Improving the political judgement of citizens: why the task environment matters. Policy & Politics48(3): 381–396.
53.
LipsetD (1982) Gregory Bateson: The Legacy of a Scientist. Boston: Beacon Press.
54.
López-FeldmanAHeresDMarquez-PadillaF (2021) Air pollution exposure and COVID-19: a look at mortality in Mexico City using individual-level data. The Science of the Total Environment756(20): 1–9.
55.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn what They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMDPopkinSL (2000) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
LupuNZechmeisterEJ (2021) The early COVID-19 pandemic and democratic attitudes. PLoS One16(6).
58.
MadridRL (2005a) Ethnic cleavages and electoral volatility in Latin America. Comparative Politics38(1): 1–20.
59.
MadridRL (2005b) Indigenous parties and democracy in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society47(4): 161–179.
60.
MadridRL (2005c) Indigenous voters and party system fragmentation in Latin America. Electoral Studies24: 689–707.
61.
MadridRL (2012) The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Madrid, 2012.
62.
MasJ-FPérez-VegaA (2021) Spatiotemporal patterns of the COVID-19 epidemic in Mexico at the municipality level. PeerJ9: 2–24.
63.
Méndez-ArriagaF (2020) The temperature and regional climate effects on communitarian COVID-19 contagion in Mexico throughout phase 1. The Science of the Total Environment735: 1–23.
64.
MeredithM (2013) Exploiting friends-and-neighbors to estimate coattail effects. American Political Science Review107(4).
65.
MerkleyEBridgmanALoewenPJ, et al. (2020) A rare moment of cross-partisan consensus: elite and public response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science53(2): 311–318.
MuraokaT (2021) The electoral implications of politically irrelevant cues under demanding electoral systems. Political Science Research and Methods9(2): 312–326.
68.
Núñez MedinaG (2021) Modelación bayesiana de patrones espacio-temporales de la incidencia acumulada de COVID-19 en municipios de México. Revista Latinoamericana de Población15(28): 160–178.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
Pardos-PradoSSagarzazuI (2016) The political conditioning of subjective economic evaluations: the role of party discourse. British Journal of Political Science46(4): 799–823.
Pérez-OrtegaJAlmanza-OrtegaNNTorres-PovedaNNMartínez-GonzálezKZavala-DíazGPazos-RangelJCR (2022) Application of Data Science for Cluster Analysis of COVID-19 Mortality According to Sociodemographic Factors at Municipal Level in Mexico. Mathematics10(13): 2167.
75.
ProkschS-OSlapinJBThiesMF (2011) Party system dynamics in post-war Japan: a quantitative content analysis. Electoral Studies; 2010: 1–11.
76.
RahnWM (1995) Candidate evaluation in complex information environments: cognitive organization and comparison process. In: LodgeMMcGrawKM (eds) Political Judgement: Structure and Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 43–64.
77.
ReedSR (1990) Structure and behaviour: extending Duverger's Law to the Japanese case. British Journal of Political Science20: 100–123.
78.
ReedSRThiesMF (2003) The consequences of electoral reform in Japan. In: ShugartMSWattenbergMP (eds) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
79.
RíosVDenova-GutiérrezEBarqueraS (2022) Association between living in municipalities with high crowding conditions and poverty and mortality from COVID-19 in Mexico. PLoS One17(2): 1–15.
80.
RobbinsJWHunterLY (2012) Impact of electoral volatility and party replacement on voter turnout levels. Party Politics18(6): 919–939.
81.
RogersJTyszlerM (2018) Information and economic voting. Political Science Research and Methods7: 753–770.
82.
RoozenbeekJSchneiderCRDryhurstS, et al. (2020) Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science7: 1–15.
SchickAGGordonLAHakaS (1990) Lnformation overload: a temporal approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society15(3): 199–220.
85.
SchraffD (2021) Political trust during the Covid-19 pandemic: rally around the flag or lockdown effects?European Journal of Political Research60: 1007–1017.
86.
SchultzW (1998) Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology80: 1–27.
87.
SchultzWDickinsonA (2000) Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience23: 473–500.
88.
SelbP (2012) Strategic adaptation to new electoral systems. European Journal of Political Research; 51: 583–606.
89.
SharkeyP (2018) The Long Reach of Violence: A Broader Perspective on Data, Theory, and Evidence on the Prevalence and Consequences of Exposure to Violence. American Review of Criminology1: 85–102.
90.
SharkeyPSampsonRJ (2015) Violence, Cognition, and Neighborhood Inequality in America. MS Social Neuroscience: Brain, Mind, and Society. Harvard University Press, (320–339).
91.
ShinoEnriketaSmith (2021) Pandemic politics: COVID-19, health concerns, and vote choice in the 2020 General Election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties31(1): 191–205.
92.
ShugartMSWattenbergMP (2003) Mixed-member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
93.
SibleyCGGreavesLMSatherleyN, et al. (2020) Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being. American Psychologist75(5): 618–630.
94.
Sosa-VillagarciaPHurtado LozadaV (2021) Covid-19 and presidential popularity in Latin America. Revista Latinoamericana de Opinión Pública10(2): 71–91.
95.
Tello-LealEMacías-HernándezBA (2021) Association of environmental and meteorological factors on the spread of COVID-19 in Victoria, Mexico, and air quality during the lockdown. Environmental Research196: 1–7.
96.
TertytchnayaKDe VriesCSolazH, et al. (2018) When the money stops: fluctuations in financial remittances and incumbent approval in central eastern europe, the caucasus and central asia. American Political Science Review112(4): 758–774.
97.
TraberDGigerNHäusermannS (2017) How economic crises affect political representation: declining party‒voter congruence in times of constrained government. West European Politics41(5): 1100–1124.
98.
Van CottDL (2000) Party system development and indigenous populations in Latin America: the Bolivian case. Party Politics6(2): 155–174.
99.
WolakJ (2009) The consequences of concurrent campaigns for citizen knowledge of congressional candidates. Political Behavior31: 211–229.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
