82 2 Figure 5. Voting likelihood when voter and politician share the same: In Figure 6 (for all full model results, see appendix 6, page 23 – for sample sizes, see table 1), I present the voting likelihoods per policy position. The most important conclusion is that politicians who support combatting climate change and regulating equal pay for equal work receive the highest voting likelihood from like-minded voters. On the other hand, the lowest voting likelihood comes from voters who support samesex adoption when confronted with politicians who oppose it (in France, the policy position on Islam receives a slightly lower voting likelihood, as detailed in appendix 2c). The policy position on immigration reveals the most divisive outcomes across all three countries, where agreeing or disagreeing with the policy has a significant impact on voting likelihood. While the policy position on Islam is also divisive, this is only the case in France and the Netherlands, not in Germany. On personal attitudes, Muslim voters barely differ from non-religious voters (less than one point, see appendix 5) on taxing the rich, supporting the unemployed, combatting climate change, raising fuel prices and gender equality. Non-religious and Muslim voters differ the most (more than one point, see appendix 5) on religious freedom for Muslims, followed by same-sex adoption and immigration. These are exactly the issues on which politicians receive the lowest voting likelihoods from the general population. I will discuss the implications of this finding in the discussion-section.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw