Territorial differentiation of personal and party voting ratio in the 2012 and 2016 elections to the Seimas of Lithuania.

Straipsnyje analizuojama padalinto balsavimo teritorinė raiška Lietuvoje. Tyrime naudoti Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo 2012 ir 2016 m. rinkimų duomenys. Tyrimas atliktas vienmandačių rinkimų apygardų ir apylinkių teritorini lygmeniu. Straipsnyje aptariami du klausimai: 1) atlikta 2012 ir 2016 m. Seimo rinkimų palyginamoji geografinė analizė, kurioje vienmandačių apygardų teritoriniu lygmeniu analizuoti partijų ir kandidatų populiarumo kaitos regioniniai aspektai; 2) 2016 m. Seimo rinkimų rezultatų pagrindu apylinkių lygmeniu analizuota padalyto balsavimo raiška centro-periferijos atžvilgiu. Vertinant padalyto balsavimo teritorinę raišką daroma išvada, kad Lietuvoje gana ryškus miesto-periferijos pjūvis. Lietuvos didžiųjų miestų (Vilniaus, Kauno ir Šiaulių) vienmandatėse rinkimų apygardose I ture nugalėjęs kandidatas ir tose pat apygardose pirmavęs jam atstovaujančios partijos sąrašas sutapo santykinai dažniau nei kaimiškose apygardose (išskyrus kai kuriuos Lietuvos regionus). Be to, kai kuriuose mažesnėse Lietuvos savivaldybėse didelę įtaką turi žinomos asmenybės, kurių aktyvus dalyvavimas politikoje lemia juos delegavusių partijų santykinai didesnį populiarumą tose pačiose savivaldybėse.The purpose of this article is to analyze the personal and party voting ratio in Lithuania. In this research, the authors used the data from the 2012 and 2016 elections to the Seimas. The research examines elections results in single-member constituencies and polling districts. The article focuses on two main aspects: 1) a comparative geographical analysis of the 2012 and 2016 elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which investigated regional aspects of changing popularity of political parties and candidates, and 2) the authors investigated split-ticket voting according to the core-periphery model on the basis of the 2016 election results to the Seimas in the electoral districts. After the evaluation of the ratio of personal and party voting, it was found that the core-periphery model was quite pronounced in Lithuania. In the single-member constituencies of the major cities of Lithuania (Vilnius, Kaunas and Šiauliai), the winner of the 1st round and the list of the winning party that represented the winner in the same constituencies coincided relatively more frequently than in rural districts (except for some regions of Lithuania). Moreover, prominent society figures, who were actively involved in political activities, had a significant influence in the elections in some municipalities, which resulted in a higher popularity of those parties that delegated them in the same municipalities (contamination effect). The influence of prominent people was noticeable in the elections of 2016, particularly it was evident in the single-member constituencies where LRLS, DP and PPT candidates won. However, such a situation is not typical of the polling districts of Lithuania’s major cities and suburbs. Although in a very large part of Lithuanian polling districts, The Lithuanian Union of Peasants and Greens (LVŽS) won in the 2016 parliamentary elections in the multi-member constituency, however in the 1st round voting where the election was held in the single-member constituencies, their results were worse. Such elections results indicate that the party lacks more prominent influential candidates. The victory in the 2nd round was mostly achieved only by LVŽS consolidating the electorate of other centre-left parties. A clearer dependence of the number of cases of split-ticket voting on the type of constituency by central-peripheral cleavage in the Seimas elections in 2016 is attributed to the elector’s political preferences to TS-LKS, LVŽS and LSPD political parties. However, different trends are observed for these political parties. In the case of TS-LKD, the frequency of split-ticket voting was relatively low in polling districts of big cities, a little bit higher in medium cities and the highest in peripheral polling districts consisting of smaller cities, towns and rural polling districts. On the contrary, the LVŽS situation was different – the number of cases of split-ticket voting was the lowest in peripheral polling districts and increased in those polling districts which are more central geographically (the exception is Šiauliai city where divided voting was pretty much non-existent). Polling districts of small and medium cities relatively often remained as the main support base for the LSDP in 2016