There might be real benefits, not just perceived benefits, to sticking to one party. If an incumbent has been mayor for a decade, and there's a challenger with policies that slightly more closely match your own, you might still prefer the incumbent. Because the incumbent has experience governing and wouldn't need to waste time learning the job or building relationships with the other major players in the city, meaning they can get the same goals accomplished faster than a rival with an identical platform.
Apart from incumbency, heuristics like party-preference are often rational. Sure, if you're *sure* you've analyzed *all* the policy positions of two candidates... and you're *also* sure you can correctly *predict* their future policies... then it would be irrational to care about their party. (You'd say that in that case, knowing their policies and likely future-policies "screens off" the predictive power of party.) In the real world, that isn't true. This applies to heuristics generally.
Good point. If you really like a party one year and trust they're similar types of people to you with similar preferences, it's a decently reliable heuristic that five years later you'd still like them and they'd still have similar preferences to you. Because parties are made up of people and people have somewhat rigid personality archetypes.
"..experiencing governing..." what or how? Experience on how to do bad things more effectively? And what goals? If I don't like the goals, then have more experience to achieve those goals more effectively is not a a good thing for me. Having "experience" could be a good or bad thing.
It helps that “its voters” are the majority Han ethnic and what they want is “sensible policy”. The Muslims in Singapore don’t vote for the PAP and they don’t want sensible policy.
In a One Party democracy the primary elections for the party become the “real election”. So you still have real elections, but about 1/4 to 1/3 of the electorate is excluded.
Cities are getting what the median Democratic primary vote wants.
In theory the GRC tries to break up racial voting blocks while guaranteeing minority representation in government, much the same way that assigning people to racial quote housing units does.
Cynically, perhaps it's a form a PAP gerrymandering mixed with diluting minority representation in such a way that they can't form a unified constituency.
Both GRCs require minority representation, Malay, Indian, or both.
Here is a map of Singapore by race, noting that the HBD system prevents being overly racially grouped.
In general looking at election results over time the PAP seems to do better in the center/west of the country that is Chinese dominated, though a place like Hougan appears to be Chinese (its worth noting that they primarily elect Chinese representatives, even when your the opposition party you vote by race). It looks like the further you go from city center the poorer it gets, so maybe this is a particularly dense and less well off Chinese district.
If I showed you a list of Baltimore Mayors you would note that they all black, and you would guess that probably their constituents were black too.
So why all this circumstantial evidence?
Because publishing exit polls is illegal in Singapore, so we can never definitely say how ethnic the voting habits are. Only that the results give hints of it.
P.S. In addition to residential patterns there is a specifically Muslim part of town at least when I visited. It was near a mosque, all the stores and people around looked Muslim, and even the local laws posted were specifically Islamic (banning alcohol for instance).
We have mosques all throughout town. And here, in a part of town that feels very Chinese (at least judged by the food you can easily get, no good Muslim or Indian options within at least a few hundred metres) you still see some anti-alcohol police signs.
I agree that data is a hard to get. That's why I was so keen to learn about sources.
Different demographics are deliberately spread around the island via some social engineering. Exactly to avoid hotspots like the alleged one you mention.
I had a look at the electoral map. The areas not won by the PAP don't strike me as particularly Muslim. (But I'd be happy to see some statistics, if you have them.)
In theory the GRC tries to break up racial voting blocks while guaranteeing minority representation in government, much the same way that assigning people to racial quote housing units does.
Cynically, perhaps it's a form a PAP gerrymandering mixed with diluting minority representation in such a way that they can't form a unified constituency.
Both GRCs require minority representation, Malay, Indian, or both.
Here is a map of Singapore by race, noting that the HBD system prevents being overly racially grouped.
In general looking at election results over time the PAP seems to do better in the center/west of the country that is Chinese dominated, though a place like Hougan appears to be Chinese (its worth noting that they primarily elect Chinese representatives, even when your the opposition party you vote by race). It looks like the further you go from city center the poorer it gets, so maybe this is a particularly dense and less well off Chinese district.
If I showed you a list of Baltimore Mayors you would note that they all black, and you would guess that probably their constituents were black too.
So why all this circumstantial evidence?
Because publishing exit polls is illegal in Singapore, so we can never definitely say how ethnic the voting habits are. Only that the results give hints of it.
P.S. In addition to residential patterns there is a specifically Muslim part of town at least when I visited. It was near a mosque, all the stores and people around looked Muslim, and even the local laws posted were specifically Islamic (banning alcohol for instance).
There might be real benefits, not just perceived benefits, to sticking to one party. If an incumbent has been mayor for a decade, and there's a challenger with policies that slightly more closely match your own, you might still prefer the incumbent. Because the incumbent has experience governing and wouldn't need to waste time learning the job or building relationships with the other major players in the city, meaning they can get the same goals accomplished faster than a rival with an identical platform.
Apart from incumbency, heuristics like party-preference are often rational. Sure, if you're *sure* you've analyzed *all* the policy positions of two candidates... and you're *also* sure you can correctly *predict* their future policies... then it would be irrational to care about their party. (You'd say that in that case, knowing their policies and likely future-policies "screens off" the predictive power of party.) In the real world, that isn't true. This applies to heuristics generally.
Good point. If you really like a party one year and trust they're similar types of people to you with similar preferences, it's a decently reliable heuristic that five years later you'd still like them and they'd still have similar preferences to you. Because parties are made up of people and people have somewhat rigid personality archetypes.
"..experiencing governing..." what or how? Experience on how to do bad things more effectively? And what goals? If I don't like the goals, then have more experience to achieve those goals more effectively is not a a good thing for me. Having "experience" could be a good or bad thing.
Of course. More experience=better only applies if their goals are mostly aligned with yours
Also in a city a party might really be a patronage network.
Don't think it's really appropriate to compare Singapore to American cities. Singapore is not really a democracy.
You should read the article and check out the links.
Singapore does give its voters what they want.
It helps that “its voters” are the majority Han ethnic and what they want is “sensible policy”. The Muslims in Singapore don’t vote for the PAP and they don’t want sensible policy.
In a One Party democracy the primary elections for the party become the “real election”. So you still have real elections, but about 1/4 to 1/3 of the electorate is excluded.
Cities are getting what the median Democratic primary vote wants.
I would be very interested in your sources that give the voting behaviour in Singapore split by religion.
Just google the election results and look at the map. The Muslim area is the only place consistently not voting for the PAP.
I just checked, and the only seats won by the WP instead of the PAP are at Hougan, which is 81% Chinese
The WP has won three jurisdictions.
Hougang_SMC (one seat)
SengKang_GRC (four seats)
AliJunied_GRC (five seats)
What is a GRC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_representation_constituency
In theory the GRC tries to break up racial voting blocks while guaranteeing minority representation in government, much the same way that assigning people to racial quote housing units does.
Cynically, perhaps it's a form a PAP gerrymandering mixed with diluting minority representation in such a way that they can't form a unified constituency.
Both GRCs require minority representation, Malay, Indian, or both.
Here is a map of Singapore by race, noting that the HBD system prevents being overly racially grouped.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-981-13-7048-9_3/MediaObjects/461180_1_En_3_Fig13_HTML.png
In general looking at election results over time the PAP seems to do better in the center/west of the country that is Chinese dominated, though a place like Hougan appears to be Chinese (its worth noting that they primarily elect Chinese representatives, even when your the opposition party you vote by race). It looks like the further you go from city center the poorer it gets, so maybe this is a particularly dense and less well off Chinese district.
https://partnews.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Singapore-Property-Heat-Map-of-the-Condominium-prices-in-districts-in-Singapore-Source.png
Another way of looking at it is to look at the face of the party. For the longest time this guy whose Malay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam
Now its this guy whose Sikh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritam_Singh_(Singaporean_politician)
If I showed you a list of Baltimore Mayors you would note that they all black, and you would guess that probably their constituents were black too.
So why all this circumstantial evidence?
Because publishing exit polls is illegal in Singapore, so we can never definitely say how ethnic the voting habits are. Only that the results give hints of it.
P.S. In addition to residential patterns there is a specifically Muslim part of town at least when I visited. It was near a mosque, all the stores and people around looked Muslim, and even the local laws posted were specifically Islamic (banning alcohol for instance).
Thanks for the response.
We have mosques all throughout town. And here, in a part of town that feels very Chinese (at least judged by the food you can easily get, no good Muslim or Indian options within at least a few hundred metres) you still see some anti-alcohol police signs.
I agree that data is a hard to get. That's why I was so keen to learn about sources.
Different demographics are deliberately spread around the island via some social engineering. Exactly to avoid hotspots like the alleged one you mention.
I had a look at the electoral map. The areas not won by the PAP don't strike me as particularly Muslim. (But I'd be happy to see some statistics, if you have them.)
I don't think there a 'Muslim area' in Singapore.
The WP has won three jurisdictions.
Hougang_SMC (one seat)
SengKang_GRC (four seats)
AliJunied_GRC (five seats)
What is a GRC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_representation_constituency
In theory the GRC tries to break up racial voting blocks while guaranteeing minority representation in government, much the same way that assigning people to racial quote housing units does.
Cynically, perhaps it's a form a PAP gerrymandering mixed with diluting minority representation in such a way that they can't form a unified constituency.
Both GRCs require minority representation, Malay, Indian, or both.
Here is a map of Singapore by race, noting that the HBD system prevents being overly racially grouped.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-981-13-7048-9_3/MediaObjects/461180_1_En_3_Fig13_HTML.png
In general looking at election results over time the PAP seems to do better in the center/west of the country that is Chinese dominated, though a place like Hougan appears to be Chinese (its worth noting that they primarily elect Chinese representatives, even when your the opposition party you vote by race). It looks like the further you go from city center the poorer it gets, so maybe this is a particularly dense and less well off Chinese district.
https://partnews.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Singapore-Property-Heat-Map-of-the-Condominium-prices-in-districts-in-Singapore-Source.png
Another way of looking at it is to look at the face of the party. For the longest time this guy whose Malay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam
Now its this guy whose Sikh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritam_Singh_(Singaporean_politician)
If I showed you a list of Baltimore Mayors you would note that they all black, and you would guess that probably their constituents were black too.
So why all this circumstantial evidence?
Because publishing exit polls is illegal in Singapore, so we can never definitely say how ethnic the voting habits are. Only that the results give hints of it.
P.S. In addition to residential patterns there is a specifically Muslim part of town at least when I visited. It was near a mosque, all the stores and people around looked Muslim, and even the local laws posted were specifically Islamic (banning alcohol for instance).