Stigmatized Campaign Practices and the Gendered Dynamics of Electoral Viability

1Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

What happens when a traditional source of political capital becomes a health hazard? Stigmatized electoral practices, such as vote buying, are a double-edged sword: While these strategies may signal candidates’ electoral strength, they may also entail reputational costs. In normal times, street campaigns are a non-stigmatized electoral practice. During the Covid-19 pandemic, however, they imposed health risks. Employing data from a national survey experiment conducted in Brazil prior to the 2020 municipal elections (N = 2025), we extend research on the employment of stigmatized campaigns and the gendered dynamics of electoral viability. We find that voters evaluate candidates who engage in face-to-face activities as less electorally viable and report lower intent to support them. These dynamics do not impact all candidates equally: Voters more harshly punish women candidates who conduct street campaigns than men, leading women to lose the advantage they have over men when both employ non-stigmatized campaign practices.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Borges Martins da Silva, M., & Gatto, M. A. C. (2021). Stigmatized Campaign Practices and the Gendered Dynamics of Electoral Viability. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 13(3), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X211058739

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free