EDITOR’S PROOF
326 N. Schofield and B. Demirkaya
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
Ta b l e 4 Joint model for 2007 elections. Normalized with respect to MHP
Variable Party Coefficient Std. error |t-value|
Spatial Coefficientβ 0. 603 *** 0. 066 − 9. 167
Relative Valenceλk AKP − 0. 694 1. 228 − 0. 565
CHP − 1. 171 1. 625 − 0. 72
DTP − 5. 183 * 2. 229 − 2. 326
DYP 11. 571 3083. 355 0. 004
ANAP 11. 583 4329. 811 0. 003
Age AKP^0.^025 *^0.^0122.^205
CHP 0. 032 * 0. 013 2. 411
DTP 0. 004 0. 032 0. 109
DYP 0. 063 ** 0. 019 3. 266
ANAP 0. 025 0. 025 0. 995
Education AKP − 0. 227 * 0. 095 − 2. 392
CHP 0. 118 0. 107 1. 104
DTP − 0. 285 0. 288 − 0. 988
DYP − 0. 228 0. 193 − 1. 181
ANAP − 0. 113 0. 209 − 0. 542
Kurdish AKP 1. 486 1. 045 1. 423
CHP − 0. 359 1. 441 − 0. 249
DTP 4. 653 *** 1. 245 3. 738
DYP − 14. 527 3083. 354 − 0. 005
ANAP − 14. 965 4329. 811 − 0. 003
Socio-economic Status AKP 0. 314 * 0. 145 2. 164
CHP 0. 288 0. 174 1. 651
DTP − 0. 36 0. 484 − 0. 744
DYP 0. 252 0. 305 0. 826
ANAP 0. 541 0. 36 1. 503
n=558; Log likelihood=− 565 .6; McFaddenR^2 = 0. 17
***Significant with probability< 0. 001
**Significant with probability< 0. 01
*Significant with probability< 0. 05
Previous studies point to a relationship between religious sect and vote choice. More
specifically, Alevi voters were more likely to vote for CHP compared to other par-
ties (Schofield et al. 2011 ). We were not able to include religious sect in our analysis
because the question was not asked to the respondents.
In the joint model, which is summarized in Table4, the spatial coefficient is
smaller than the pure spatial model but it is still statistically significant. However,
none of the valence terms except the one for DTP are statistically significant. Among
the demographic characteristics, the only one that is both substantively and statisti-
