In Germany, more than one in four people have a migration background, and the number of naturalizations is rising. As a result, the proportion of eligible voters with their own immigration history or family migration experience is also steadily increasing.
Sabrina Mayer's guiding question: Do established theories on voting behavior also apply to voters with a migration history—and if so, when and why?
Key findings
- Voter turnout and voting behavior can generally be explained using standard models, such as resources, political engagement and mobilization (civic voluntarism), party affiliation, and short-term factors (Michigan model). Differences tend to be found in the weightings (e.g., the greater role of education in certain subgroups) rather than in entirely unique mechanisms.
- Nevertheless, there are gaps: these arise, for example, from later or different attitude formation, unequal accumulation of resources over the course of life, and lower mobilization effects from election campaigns.
- Context and identity reveal the limitations of standard models: The example of Russian-German voters and targeted election campaigns by the AfD shows that targeted outreach and ethnic identity mobilization can influence party political preferences and voting decisions.
Insights that linger
Before and after the lecture, the LIfBi team took the opportunity to engage in professional exchange with Sabrina Mayer, for example on migration research at NEPS, the focus on civic literacy and political participation in NEPS-SC8, and methodological challenges. The dialogue on survey methodology, especially sampling and participant recruitment, was particularly valuable for LIfBi staff. IMGES' experience shows that although population groups with a migration background are considered more difficult to survey and participation rates are lower, intensive fieldwork can counteract this. An experiment proved that personal contact noticeably increases participation and panel retention.