Intergenerational Voter Preference Survey - Preliminary Results ...

Manager, COE -0.231 -0.53 0.0833 0.11 -0.282 -0.48Firm (clercial) -0.412 -1.17 0.708 1.5 -0.692 -1.54Firm (engieering) -0.317 -0.92 0.338 0.71 -0.872 -1.92Firm(other_) -0.318 -0.87 0.435 0.86 -1.592** -2.6Self employed -0.713 -1.81 0.46 0.82 -0.449 -0.91Independent professional -0.923 -1.32 0.906 0.99 -0.187 -0.23Full time housewife -0.164 -0.53 0.315 0.71 -0.830* -2.11Part time employment -0.626 -1.7 0.199 0.4 -0.514 -1.16StudentOther -0.413 -1.03 -0.217 -0.29 -1.208 -1.75Unemployed 0.222 0.57 0.455 0.51 -1.355 -1.66Sex -0.124 -0.91 -0.113 -0.66 -0.293 -1.4Age .0368*** 5.4 -0.123*** -10.46 -0.0247* -2.26Number of children -0.288** -3.07 0.286** 2.63 0.00902 0.07Constant -2.367*** -5.23 2.411*** 3.84 -0.632 -1.00Table 17: Policy Choice Regression * 95%, ** 99%, ***99.99%We now turn to determination of party support. It turns out that factors thatdetermine party support differs by party. There is only variable that is significant forchoosing of JDP is Age (Table 18). Older the voter, the more likely he or she is tochoose JDP. Age is significant at 99% but constant if significant at 99.99%. LDP isless likely to be chosen by Full-time housewife and those employed part-time. Only theconstant term is significant when the same variables are regressed on Communist Party,Komei-Toh and Social Democratic Party. Min-nano Toh regression shows Age is 0.0205and significant at 95%.JDPLDPVariabale Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-valueCivil servantManager, COE -0.0696 -0.13 0.176 0.41Firm (clercial) 0.195 0.49 -0.171 -0.5Firm (engieering) 0.259 0.6 -0.699 -1.94Firm(other_) 0.00348 0.01 -0.671 -1.74Self employed -0.757 -1.55 -0.672 -1.68Independent professional 0.513 0.82 -0.192 -0.3122