81 2 Figure 4 (for all full model results, see appendix 6, page 22 – for sample sizes, see table 1) shows the testing of hypothesis H1.c. in which I state that women prefer woman to man politicians. Contrary to the hypothesis, neither man nor woman voters exhibit a significant preference for man or woman politicians. Therefore, I reject hypothesis H1.c. This result is consistent across all three countries, as shown in appendix 2b. In the figure below, I therefore present stacked data from France, Germany, and the Netherlands. I conducted additional analyses to investigate whether there were any intersectional effects of migration background, religion with gender, but I found no consistent evidence for such effects. Similarly, when I examined the intersection of religion, migration background, and gender on both politicians and voters, I did not find any significant intersectional effects either. Figure 4. Voting likelihood when voter and politician share the same gender: Figure 5 (for all full model results, see appendix 6, page 23 – for sample sizes, see table 1) presents the outcomes of hypothesis H2, which examines whether respondents prefer politicians with similar policy positions or similar descriptive characteristics. The weighted outcomes show that policy agreement is more important to voters than sharing similar descriptive characteristics, by far. Voter have a 67 percent probability of voting for a politician when they share their policy stance, against 33 percent when they do not. Although sharing the same religion is also important to voters, policy positions are much more critical. Irrespective of which religion, sharing the same religion leads to a voting likelihood of 55 percent, while not sharing the same religion reduces the likelihood to 48 percent. Sharing the same migration background and gender or not does not reveal any statistically significant differences.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw