Perilaku Memilih Rasional dalam Pemilu Indonesia Kontemporer

Perbandingan Pemilu 2014 dan Pemilu 2019



Kata Kunci:

rational voting behaviour, Indonesian politics, local elections, political preference


The rational voting behaviour within current Indonesian political situation is still debatable. It basically shows the different socio-economic and socio-political backgrounds among the voters that results in different voting behaviour expressions. The urban voters whom middle-class background seems to be rational voters. They would like to be open-minded accepting various preferences rather than one or two preferences. This makes the urban voters could critically asses the parties and candidates they preferred with. Most importantly, they would stress some important issues like money poltiics and national economic evaluation to address voting behaviour expressions. For some reasons, these two factors still be important issues in shaping political choices in Indonesia. This paper will further elaborate empirically the rational voting behaviour in Indonesia. Specifically, this paper used the survey data from 2014 and 2019 elections to elaborate rational voting behaviour recently. These two recent elections basically could represent the latest voting behaviour expressions in Indonesia.


Data unduhan belum tersedia.


Aspinal, E., & Sukmajati, M. (2015). Politik Uang di Indonesia: Patronase dan Klientelisme pada Pemilu Legislatif 2014. Yogyakarta: Polgov.

Aspinall, E. (2014). When Brokers Betray: Clientelism, Social Networks, and Electoral Politics in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, (April 2015), 37–41.

Berenschot, W., & Aspinall, E. (2020). How Clientelism Varies: Comparing Patronage Democracies. Democratization, 27(1), 1–19.

Bingham Powell, G., & Whitten, G. D. (1993). Midwest Political Science Association Wiley A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context Author. Source: American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414.

Biswas, F. (2022). Electoral patterns and voting behavior of Bihar in Assembly elections from 2010 to 2020: a spatial analysis. GeoJournal, (April).

Boas, T. C. (2015). Voting for Democracy: Campaign Effects in Chile’s Democratic Transition. Latin American Politics and Society, 57(2), 67–90.

Bornschier, S., Häusermann, S., Zollinger, D., & Colombo, C. (2021). How “Us” and “Them” Relates to Voting Behavior—Social Structure, Social Identities, and Electoral Choice. In Comparative Political Studies (Vol. 54).

DeCotiis, T. A., & LeLouarn, J. Y. (1981). A Predictive Study of Voting Behavior in a Representation Election Using Union Instrumentality and Work Perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(1), 103–118.

Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. (2005). Context and the Economic Vote: A Multilevel Analysis. Political Analysis, 13(4), 387–409.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Routledge.

Fong, B. (2017). In-between Liberal Authoritarianism and Electoral Authoritarianism: Hong Kong’s Democratization Under Chinese Sovereignty, 1997–2016. Democratization, 24(4), 724–750.

Jasiewicz, K. (2009). “The past is never dead”: Identity, class, and voting behavior in contemporary poland. East European Politics and Societies, 23(4), 491–508.

Jati, W. R. (2022a). Comparative Analysis of Clientelistic Democracy in India and Indonesia: Outcomes and Challenges. Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review, 7(1).

Jati, W. R. (2022b). Polarization of Indonesian Society during 2014-2020: Causes and Its Impacts toward Democracy. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 26(2), 152–167.

Kusnandar, V. B. (2022). Tingkat Partisipasi Pemilih pada Pemilu Legistatif 1955-2019. Retrieved July 11, 2022, from Data Boks Katadata website:

Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72.

Lembaga Survei Indonesia. (2019). Laporan Survei Post Election 2019. Jakarta.

Loew, N., & Faas, T. (2019). Between Thin- and Host-ideologies: How Populist Attitudes Interact with Policy Preferences in Shaping Voting Behaviour. Representation, 55(4), 493–511.

McAllister, I., Sheppard, J., & Bean, C. (2015). Valence and spatial explanations for voting in the 2013 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 330–346.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Choosing Effective Behavior Change Tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 35–46.

Mietzner, M. (2020). Authoritarian innovations in Indonesia: electoral narrowing, identity politics and executive illiberalism. Democratization, 27(6), 1021–1036.

Muhtadi, B. (2018). Komoditas Demokrasi: Efek Sistem Pemilu terhadap Maraknya Jual Beli Suara. In Pembiayaan Pemilu di Indonesia (pp. 95–117). Jakarta: Bawaslu RI.

Mutz, D. C. (2013). The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

Pahlevi, M. E. T., Khalyubi, W., & Khatami, M. I. (2021). Persepsi Pemilih Milenial Dalam Pemilu Serentak 2019 di Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu, 2(2), 99–114.

Pastor, R. A. (1999). The role of electoral administration in democratic transitions: Implications for policy and research. Democratization, 6(4), 1–27.

Pusat Penelitian Politik - LIPI. (2014). Laporan Akhir Survei Nasional 2014: Partisipasi Politik dan Partisipasi Pemilih. Jakarta.

Raymond, C. D., & Worth, R. M. (2017). Explaining voting behaviour on free votes: Solely a matter of preference? British Politics, 12(4), 555–564.

Rohendi, R., & Muzzamil, F. (2021). Tipologi Pemilih Pemula pada Pilkada Jabar 2018: Studi tentang Tipe Pemilih dari Kalangan Remaja di Kabupaten Purwakarta. Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu, 4(1), 46–65.

Rumah Pemilu. (2014). Money Politic Hantui Pileg. Retrieved July 24, 2022, from Rumah Pemilu website:




Cara Mengutip

Jati, W. R. (2022). Perilaku Memilih Rasional dalam Pemilu Indonesia Kontemporer: Perbandingan Pemilu 2014 dan Pemilu 2019. Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu, 5(2), 70–84.