@article{KayserRehmert, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Rehmert, Jochen}, title = {Coalition Prospects and Policy Change: An Application to the Environment}, series = {Legislative Studies Quarterly}, journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly}, issn = {1939-9162}, doi = {10.1111/lsq.12273}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36133}, abstract = {In most developed democracies, parties adjust their positions to polls and public opinion. Yet, in a coalition government, the policy that emerges is often the outcome of negotiations between governing parties. We argue that the credibility of exit threats by current coalition members and the importance of outside parties for the formation of potential alternative coalitions both matter for policy adoption. Building on a new data set measuring the expected coalition-inclusion probabilities of parties in parliamentary democracies, we estimate the effect of coalition prospects on an important policy outcome—environmental policy stringency—in nine European countries between 1990 and 2012. Our findings demonstrate that only polling shifts that alter coalition probabilities affect outcomes. Changes in the coalition-inclusion probability of green parties—regardless of whether they are in government—predict changes in the environmental policy stringency of sitting governments. Political polls, in contrast, do not.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A far-right party just won seats in three German state parliaments. Here's why.}, series = {The Washington Post}, journal = {The Washington Post}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {Voters seem to respond to the "reported" rather than to the "real" economy}, series = {Democratic Audit UK (London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Public Policy Group) \& Homepage of the Hertie School of Governance}, journal = {Democratic Audit UK (London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Public Policy Group) \& Homepage of the Hertie School of Governance}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A Benchmarking Forecasting the 2013 Election - the Post-Mortem Analysis}, series = {EU Political Economy Bulletin}, journal = {EU Political Economy Bulletin}, number = {Winter 2014}, edition = {17}, publisher = {European Union Studies Association, EU Political Economy Interest Section}, address = {Pittsburgh}, pages = {9 -- 12}, language = {en} } @incollection{KayserStanig, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Stanig, Piero}, title = {Governance Indicators: Some Proposals}, series = {Governance Challenges and Innovations: Financial and Fiscal Governance}, booktitle = {Governance Challenges and Innovations: Financial and Fiscal Governance}, editor = {Anheier, Helmut K.}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780199674930}, doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674930.001.0001}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {189 -- 220}, language = {en} } @article{KayserWegrich, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Von Unis Gnaden: Ein Deutsches Status Symbol}, series = {The European Magazine}, journal = {The European Magazine}, publisher = {Weimer Media Group}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, language = {de} } @article{KayserWlezien, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Wlezien, Christopher}, title = {Performance Pressure: Patterns of Partisanship and the Economic Vote}, series = {European Journal of Political Research}, volume = {50}, journal = {European Journal of Political Research}, number = {May 2011}, edition = {3}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons}, doi = {10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01934.x}, pages = {365 -- 394}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A Benchmarking Forecast of the 2013 Bundestag Election}, language = {en} } @article{Kayser, author = {Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {Partisan Waves: International Business Cycles and Electoral Choice}, series = {American Journal of Political Science}, volume = {53}, journal = {American Journal of Political Science}, number = {October 2009}, edition = {4}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons}, doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00410.x}, pages = {950 -- 970}, language = {en} } @incollection{AnheierStanigKayser, author = {Anheier, Helmut K. and Stanig, Piero and Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {Introducing a New Generation of Governance Indicators}, series = {The Governance Report 2013}, booktitle = {The Governance Report 2013}, publisher = {Oxford Univ.Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-967442-8}, pages = {117 -- 148}, abstract = {This Report is about the state of governance. Few would doubt that the conditions of governance have changed — and continue to change — as the early 21st century seems to enter a period of profound uncertainty. Yet, at the same time, the world seems alive with a cacophony of approaches — old and new — on how to improve governance and, ultimately, policy outcomes. This Report — the first in a series of annual editions produced by the Hertie School of Governance — seeks to address the implications of the current state of the world in terms of "good governance", that is, the effective, efficient, and reliable set of legitimate institutions and actors dedicated to dealing with matters of public concern, be it in the field of financial markets, health care, security, or migration, and across local, national, and international levels. Following an introduction that offers a framework of basic concepts and models, The Governance Report 2013 then goes on to explore a number of global challenges and the reasons behind seemingly lacklustre responses and highlight the need for responsible sovereignty; examine in depth the challenges of financial and fiscal governance with a focus on the trade-offs and ways to address them; analyse key governance innovations and their potential for success; and assess existing indicators of governance, while proposing a new framework for collecting, interpreting, and applying governance-related information. The findings lead to a set of concrete proposals on the way ahead.(About the Book)}, language = {en} } @misc{AnheierHaberKayser, author = {Anheier, Helmut K. and Haber, Matthias and Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {Governance Indicators: Approaches, Progress, Promise}, editor = {Anheier, Helmut K. and Haber, Matthias and Kayser, Mark A.}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198817062}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780198817062.001.0001}, pages = {336}, abstract = {As difficult as it might seem to define governance, it appears to be that much more difficult to measure it. Since the World Bank Institute launched the Worldwide Governance Indicators in the late 1990s, the governance indicators field has flourished and experienced significant advances in terms of methodology, data coverage and quality, and policy relevance. Other major initiatives have added to a momentum that propelled research on governance indicators seen in few other academic fields in the economic and social sciences. Given these developments and the prominence and policy relevance the field of governance indicator research has achieved, the time is ripe to take stock and ask what has been accomplished, what the shortcomings and potentials might be, and what steps present themselves as a way forward. This volume—the fifth edition in an annual series tackling different aspects of governance around the world—assesses what has been achieved, identifies strengths and weaknesses of current work, and points to issues that need to be tackled in order to advance the field, both in its academic importance as well as in its policy relevance. In short, the contributions to this volume explore the scope of existing governance indices and indicator frameworks, elaborate on current challenges in measuring and analysing governance, and consider how to overcome them.}, language = {en} } @article{HouleKayser, author = {Houle, Christian and Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {The Two-step Model of Clustered Democratization}, series = {Journal of Conflict Resolution}, volume = {63}, journal = {Journal of Conflict Resolution}, number = {10}, doi = {10.1177/0022002719875565}, pages = {2421 -- 2437}, abstract = {Does democratization diffuse? For over two decades, numerous studies have asserted that democratization diffuses across countries but recent research has challenged this claim. Most recently, work by Brancati and Lucardi has buttressed this null finding by demonstrating that an oft assumed mechanism for the diffusion of democratization—the diffusion of pro-democracy protests—lacks empirical support. We review this contribution in the context of recent research and pose the question: if democratization does not diffuse, then why does democratization cluster in time and space? The answer, we argue, is that democratization occurs in two steps. First, common shocks, economic or political, lead to regime collapse. Then, diffusion does emerge in a second step: new elites are more likely to install a democracy following a regime collapse if neighboring countries have recently democratized. We present evidence from democratic transitions in 125 autocracies between 1875 and 2014.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserPeress, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Peress, Michael}, title = {Benchmarking across Borders: An Update and Response}, series = {British Journal of Political Science}, volume = {X}, journal = {British Journal of Political Science}, doi = {10.1017/S0007123418000625}, pages = {1 -- 4}, abstract = {Arel-Bundock, Blais and Dassonneville (2018, ABD hereafter) offer an unusual critique of our 12 article, Benchmarking across Borders. They find no methodological flaws, produce identical 13 empirical results and concede that their proposed specification (Model 5) is mathematically 14 identical to that used in Kayser and Peress (2012, KP hereafter). ABD make two claims: (1) that 15 their preferred specification is an innovation that improves interpretation and (2) that the 16 empirical evidence presented in KP does not support benchmarking. The first is unpersuasive 17 and the second depends on a selective reading of the evidence. We address these issues below and 18 update the individual-level dataset from KP to increase statistical power, finding additional 19 evidence of benchmarking.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {Eine l{\"a}nderbasierte Prognose zur Bundestagswahl 2017}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, number = {58(3)}, issn = {0032-3470}, doi = {10.5771/0032-3470-2017-3-407}, pages = {407 -- 417}, abstract = {When elections are distant, polls are poor predictors. Too few voters are paying attention and too much can change before election day. Structural models can establish baseline expectations but suffer from high uncertainty and underspecification imposed by small samples. We present an early forecast of the 2017 Bundestag election results for individual parties that leverages economic and political data as well as state parliament (Landtag) election results in the German states (L{\"a}nder) to sidestep these shortcomings. A linear random effects model provides our estimates. L{\"a}nder elections are dispersed over the calendar and offer the advantage of capturing both actual voter preferences and new political issues. We argue that this approach offers a promising method for early forecasts when polls are not informative.}, language = {de} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A Laender-Based Forecast of the 2017 German Bundestag Election}, series = {PS: Political Science \& Politics}, volume = {50}, journal = {PS: Political Science \& Politics}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1017/S1049096517000427}, pages = {689 -- 692}, language = {en} } @article{KayserBlaydes2011, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Blaydes, Lisa}, title = {Counting Calories: Democracy and Distribution in the Developing World}, series = {International Studies Quarterly}, volume = {55}, journal = {International Studies Quarterly}, number = {4}, issn = {1468-2478}, doi = {10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00692.x}, pages = {887 -- 908}, year = {2011}, abstract = {How does regime type affect the poor? Are certain types of regimes better at translating economic growth into consumption for the world's least privileged citizens? We propose an alternative measure of transfers to the poor that is nearly universally available and innately captures distribution: average daily calorie consumption. In sharp contrast to the consumption of material goods or the accumulation of wealth for which humans have shown no upper bound on their ability to achieve, biological limits make it impossible for a small number of individuals to consume most of a nation's calories. Democracies and hybrid regimes—which combine elements of autocracy and democracy—are better at translating economic growth into total calorie consumption than autocracies and perform strikingly similarly in this regard; democracies outperform both hybrid regimes and autocracies, however, in converting growth into higher quality calories from animal sources.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A Predictive Test of Voters' Economic Benchmarking: The 2013 Bundestag Election}, series = {German Politics}, volume = {25}, journal = {German Politics}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/09644008.2015.1129531}, pages = {106 -- 130}, abstract = {Do voters judge their national economy relative to economic performance abroad? In 2013 we took advantage of the German Bundestag election to test this hypothesis predictively. Nearly two months prior to the election, we published an election forecast relying on a theory-driven empirical model of election outcomes that draws on previous election outcomes; characteristics of the government and of voters; and, most originally, the relative economic performance of Germany ('benchmarked' growth) in comparison to the three other most important economies in Europe - France, the UK and Italy. Our forecast put the outgoing coalition government of CDU/CSU and FDP at 47.05 per cent of the popular vote deviating from the actual outcome of 46.3 by 0.75 points. This makes our forecast one of the most accurate in this election cycle. Despite one-and-a-half months of lead time, our forecast performed on par or slightly better than the last poll results issued only two days before the election.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserPeress, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Peress, Michael}, title = {Does the Media Cover the Economy Accurately? Evidence from Sixteen Developed Democracies.}, series = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science}, volume = {16}, journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1561/100.00019098}, pages = {1 -- 33}, abstract = {Can voters learn what they need to learn to hold governments accountable for theeconomy through news coverage? Employing the first large-scale cross-nationaldataset of media coverage of the economy—over 2 million machine-coded articlesrelated to three economic indicators in 32 mainstream newspapers, one left-wingand one right-wing, in 16 developed countries and six languages—we investigatemedia coverage of the economy that bears implications for electoral accountabilityand partisan advantage. We find that the tone of most mainstream newspaperstracks the economy faithfully, although the frequency of coverage increases withnegative outcomes. While we find some evidence for partisan bias in tone forgrowth headlines and in frequency of coverage for unemployment articles, itssubstantive magnitude is diminutive. Mainstream newspaper coverage providesvoters with largely accurate information.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserAbouChadi, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Abou-Chadi, Tarik}, title = {It's Not Easy Being Green: Why Voters Punish Parties for Environmental Policies in Downturns}, series = {Electoral Studies}, volume = {45}, journal = {Electoral Studies}, doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2016.10.009}, pages = {201 -- 207}, abstract = {Recent scholarship asserts the existence of "luxury goods voting" arguing that voters penalize parties associated with post-material issues or those with long-run payoffs during economic downturns. We test this arguments here using data from four election studies in Denmark and Germany that explicitly ask respondents to rate parties on one particular luxury goods issue: protection of the environment. Voters who perceive the economy as weak indeed punish governing parties more severely when they associate them with environmental policies; conversely, a green reputation when the economy is expanding garners left-wing parties higher vote probabilities. Right-wing governing parties fare similarly, benefitting from those who perceive them as green when the economy is hale, albeit only converging to the vote probabilities awarded from voters who see them as less green when the economy sours.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserHouleXiang, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Houle, Christian and Xiang, Jun}, title = {Diffusion or Confusion? Clustered Shocks and the Conditional Diffusion of Democracy}, series = {International Organization}, volume = {70}, journal = {International Organization}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1017/S002081831600028X}, pages = {687 -- 726}, abstract = {Scholars, observing clustering in transitions to democracy, argue that democratization diffuses across borders as citizens in autocracies demand the same reforms they witness in neighboring states. We disagree. This article demonstrates that diffusion plays only a highly conditional role in democratization. We advance and test an alternative two-step theory of clustered democratization: (1) economic and international political shocks, which are clustered spatially and temporally, induce the breakdown of authoritarian regimes; then (2) democratic diffusion, in turn, influences whether a fallen dictatorship will be replaced by a democracy or a new autocracy. Diffusion, despite playing an important role, is insufficient to explain the clustering of transitions. Using data on 125 autocracies from 1875 to 2004, we show that economic crises trigger authoritarian breakdowns, while diffusion influences whether the new regime is democratic or authoritarian.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kayser, author = {Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {The Elusive Economic Vote}, series = {Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in a Changing World}, booktitle = {Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in a Changing World}, editor = {LeDuc, Lawrence and Niemi, Richard G. and Norris, Pippa}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Thousand Oaks, CA}, doi = {10.4135/9781473921108.n7}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {112 -- 132}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {A L{\"a}nder-based forecast of the 2017 German Bundestag Election}, series = {Political Science \& Politics}, volume = {50}, journal = {Political Science \& Politics}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1049-0965}, doi = {10.1017/S1049096517000427}, pages = {689 -- 692}, language = {en} } @incollection{KayserPeress, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Peress, Michael}, title = {The Buck Stops over There? Globalization and Electoral Accountability}, series = {Globalization and Domestic Politics}, booktitle = {Globalization and Domestic Politics}, editor = {Vowles, Jack and Xezonakis, Georgios}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-875798-6}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {89 -- 112}, language = {en} } @article{KayserPeress, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Peress, Michael}, title = {Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison}, series = {American Political Science Review}, volume = {106}, journal = {American Political Science Review}, number = {3}, issn = {1537-5943}, doi = {10.1017/S0003055412000275}, pages = {661 -- 684}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLindstaedt, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Lindst{\"a}dt, Ren{\´e}}, title = {A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness}, series = {Political Analysis}, volume = {23}, journal = {Political Analysis}, number = {2}, issn = {1047-1987}, doi = {10.1093/pan/mpv001}, pages = {242 -- 253}, language = {en} } @incollection{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {The Economy and Chancellor Approval in Germany: A Cautionary Tale about Data Vintages and Measurement}, series = {Economics and Politics Revisited: Executive Approval and the New Calculus of Support}, booktitle = {Economics and Politics Revisited: Executive Approval and the New Calculus of Support}, editor = {Hellwig, Timothy and Singer, Matthew}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {9780192871664}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeiningerVlasenko, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt and Vlasenko, Anastasiia}, title = {A L{\"a}nder-Based Forecast of the 2021 German Bundestag Election}, series = {PS: Political Science \& Politics}, volume = {55}, journal = {PS: Political Science \& Politics}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/S1049096521000974}, pages = {79 -- 84}, language = {en} } @article{KayserOrlowskiRehmert, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Orlowski, Matthias and Rehmert, Jochen}, title = {Coalition inclusion probabilities: a party-strategic measure for predicting policy and politics}, series = {Political Science Research and Methods}, volume = {11}, journal = {Political Science Research and Methods}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1017/psrm.2021.75}, pages = {328 -- 346}, abstract = {Policy in coalition governments (a) depends on negotiations between parties that (b) continue between elections. No extant means of predicting policy—bargaining power indices, vote shares, seat shares, polling, veto players or measures of electoral competitiveness—recognizes both of these facts. We conceptualize, estimate and validate the first dynamic measure of parties' bargaining leverage intended to predict policy and politics. We argue that those parties with the greatest leverage in policy negotiations are those with the highest probability of participating in an alternative government, were one to form. Combining a large set of political polls and an empirical coalition formation model developed with out-of-sample testing, we estimate coalition inclusion probabilities for parties in a sample of 21 parliamentary democracies at a monthly frequency over four decades. Applications to government spending and to the stringency of environmental policy show leverage from coalition inclusion probabilities to be strongly predictive while the primary alternatives—vote shares, seat shares and polls—are not.}, language = {en} } @book{KayserChangLinzerandetal.2011, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Chang, Eric C.C. and Linzerand, Drew and Rogowski, Ronald}, title = {Electoral Systems and the Balance of Consumer-Producer Power}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge [u.a.]}, isbn = {9780521138154}, pages = {262}, year = {2011}, abstract = {This book investigates the effects of electoral systems on the relative legislative and, hence, regulatory influence of competing interests in society. Building on Ronald Rogowski and Mark Andreas Kayser's extension of the classic Stigler-Peltzman model of regulation, the authors demonstrate that majoritarian electoral arrangements should empower consumers relative to producers. Employing real price levels as a proxy for consumer power, the book rigorously establishes this proposition over time, within the OECD, and across a large sample of developing countries. Majoritarian electoral arrangements depress real prices by approximately ten percent, all else equal. The authors carefully construct and test their argument and broaden it to consider the overall welfare effects of electoral system design and the incentives of actors in the choice of electoral institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{FranchinoKayserWratil, author = {Franchino, Fabio and Kayser, Mark A. and Wratil, Christopher}, title = {Electoral competitiveness and responsiveness: rational anticipation in the EU Council}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {29}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2021.1991986}, pages = {42 -- 60}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kayser, author = {Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {Measuring Governance: An Assessment of the Research Challenges}, series = {Governance Indicators}, booktitle = {Governance Indicators}, editor = {Anheier, Helmut K. and Haber, Matthias and Kayser, Mark A.}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198817062}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780198817062.003.0011}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {255 -- 269}, language = {en} } @article{KayserLeininger, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt}, title = {Vintage errors: do real-time economic data improve election forecasts?}, series = {Research and Politics}, volume = {2}, journal = {Research and Politics}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London [u.a.]}, issn = {2053-1680}, doi = {10.1177/2053168015589624}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-16321}, pages = {1 -- 11}, abstract = {Economic performance is a key component of most election forecasts. When fitting models, however, most forecasters unwittingly assume that the actual state of the economy, a state best estimated by the multiple periodic revisions to official macroeconomic statistics, drives voter behavior. The difference in macroeconomic estimates between revised and original data vintages can be substantial, commonly over 100\% (two-fold) for economic growth estimates, making the choice of which data release to use important for the predictive validity of a model. We systematically compare the predictions of four forecasting models for numerous US presidential elections using real-time and vintage data. We find that newer data are not better data for election forecasting: forecasting error increases with data revisions. This result suggests that voter perceptions of economic growth are influenced more by media reports about the economy, which are based on initial economic estimates, than by the actual state of the economy.}, language = {en} } @article{StoetzerKayserLeiningeretal., author = {Stoetzer, Lukas F. and Kayser, Mark A. and Leininger, Arndt and Murr, Andreas E.}, title = {Voters' Expectations in Constituency Elections without Local Polls}, series = {Public Opinion Quarterly}, journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly}, doi = {10.1093/poq/nfae015}, abstract = {How do voters form accurate expectations about the strength of political candidates in constituency elections if there are no reliable constituency polls available? We argue that voters can use national election polls and past election results to increase the accuracy of their expectations. A survey experiment during the German federal election of 2021 confirms that the provision of national election polls and past results increases the accuracy of voters' expectations. The analysis further shows that voters leverage the information to update their beliefs. The results have relevant implications for debates about belief formation in low-information environments.}, language = {en} } @incollection{LeiningerMurrStoetzeretal., author = {Leininger, Arndt and Murr, Andreas E. and Stoetzer, Lukas F. and Kayser, Mark A.}, title = {B{\"u}rger:innenprognosen in einem Mischwahlsystem: Die deutsche Bundestagswahl 2021 als Testfall}, series = {Wahlen und W{\"a}hler}, booktitle = {Wahlen und W{\"a}hler}, editor = {Schoen, Harald and Weßels, Bernhard}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {9783658426934}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-42694-1_15}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {383 -- 411}, abstract = {Wie viele Wahlkreise gewinnt welche Partei bei der Bundestagswahl? Diese Frage war im Vorfeld der Bundestagswahl 2021 trotz des deutschen Mischwahlsystems unter Fachleuten wie auch einer breiteren {\"O}ffentlichkeit von besonderem Interesse. Diesem Bedarf an Vorhersagen bedient in j{\"u}ngerer Zeit eine zunehmende Zahl von Prognosemodellen, die sich jedoch fast ausschließlich auf die Zweitstimme abzielen. F{\"u}r Wahlkreise gibt es nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern auch in reinen Mehrheitswahlsystemen, kaum relevante Umfragen. Wir f{\"u}hrten daher eine Wahlerwartungsumfrage durch, um den Wahlausgang in jedem einzelnen Bundestagswahlkreis zu prognostizieren. Wir nennen unseren Ansatz B{\"u}rger:innenprognose, weil er auf den Erwartungen der B{\"u}rger:innen {\"u}ber das Wahlverhalten ihrer Mitb{\"u}rger:innen beruht und nicht auf deren selbstberichteten Wahlabsichten. In diesem Beitrag stellen wir unsere B{\"u}rger:innenprognose vor, evaluieren ihre Genauigkeit und vergleichen sie mit anderen Ans{\"a}tzen zur Wahlprognose.}, language = {de} }