Evaluation of Public Support in the Arrangement of Electoral Districts and Allocation of Regional People’s Representative Council Seats for the 2024 General Election in Buton Regency, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia

Evaluation of Public Support in the Arrangement of Electoral Districts and Allocation of Regional People’s Representative Council Seats for the 2024 General Election in Buton Regency, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia

Burhan^1*, Laode Abdul Wahab², Ahmadi³, Mahrudin⁴, Hikarni Ali⁵, Sudariyono⁶

^1,2,3,4 lecturer of Institute Agama Islam Negeri Kendari

⁵Indonesian Voters Association of Buton Regency

⁶Buton Regency General Election Commission

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8100033

Received: 13 September 2024; Accepted: 26 September 2024; Published: 29 October 2024

ABSTRACT

Research examining community support in organizing electoral districts in Indonesia is still limited, especially in district areas. This article aims to explore public support regarding the determination of electoral districts and the allocation of chairman of the Regional People’s Representative Council in Buton Regency, Southeast Sulawesi. The methods used include a survey with a 5 Likert scale questionnaire, group interviews, and documentation. The process of arranging electoral districts and allocating seats in Buton Regency is designed in 7 plans. The electoral district design that received the highest public support determined by the General Election Commission of the Republic of Indonesia, resulted in 3 electoral districts, namely Buton 1, 2, and 3 electoral districts. Analysis shows that public support is in the very strong category, with an average of 83.34. % from in-person surveys and 85.51% from online surveys. These findings reflect the community’s strong support for the designation process. However, the public also emphasizes the importance of maintaining democratic values ​​and fairness in elections. Consolidation and broader public participation are needed to create a more inclusive process. This research contributes to reform in literature and public policy related to the electoral system in Indonesia.

Keywords: Buton Regency, electoral district determination, general election, public support, seat allocation.

INTRODUCTION

The 2024 general election in Indonesia is the main focus for the people who are always waiting for the implementation of a more dignified democracy. Voting and counting of votes was carried out on February 14 2024. The design of electoral districts in Indonesia still maintains the use of 5 ballot boxes at each polling place. The electoral district concept was developed based on regional characteristics and local population. The population in an area will determine the allocation of seats available for that electoral district, where the number of elected legislative members from each electoral district will be in accordance with the number of seats available.

Various experts, both in Indonesia and at the international level, have conducted studies on electoral districts. In Indonesia, researchers such as Azhar et al. (2023) [1] focus on policies for structuring electoral districts in Deliserdang Regency, temporarily Idrus et al. (2019)[2] reviewing the 2019 Election in the Selayar Islands. Hidayaturrahman (2020)[3] researching the role of people’s representatives in the Sumenep electoral district, and Siagian et al. (2022) conducted a study in South Nias Regency. Berenschot et al. (2021)[4]  examines democratization and the role of elite reform at the village level in Yogyakarta. Amalia (2022)[5] has also carried out descriptions, tests and evaluations of the electoral district arrangement in Pasuruan Regency. International experts such as, McKay (2020)[6] states that electoral districts in the United States function as the birthplace of legislative members who represent voters in a particular area. Ascencio (2023)[7] explained that representatives need to meet voters’ expectations through primaries in Mexico. Johann et al. (2018)[8] argue that interactions between political party candidates and voters can encourage voters to change their voting preferences. Koskimaa et al. (2023)[9] emphasized that by choosing the right candidates, political parties can increase their competitiveness in elections. Birch & Martínez i Coma (2023)[10] in his study in Honduras shows that to compete effectively, there needs to be a mutually beneficial relationship between voters and political parties., Alexander et al. (2023)[11] in his research in South Africa found that voters tend to vote for political parties that offer incentives.

Research on the relationship between political party and voter behavior, political economy, and welfare has an important contribution to understanding the causes and impacts of support for radical right parties. The study of the ideology of radical right parties provides a theoretical framework for explaining the welfare impacts generated by these parties (Rathgeb & Busemeyer, 2022)[12]. A study in Norway shows that voters tend to support political parties that integrate the concept of social investment with progressive cultural policies (Arnesen et al., 2023)[13]. To overcome the complexity in the economic cycle transition process, good public governance and effective networks are needed (Cramer, 2022)[14].

Various literature shows that research interest related to electoral districts has grown rapidly, both in Indonesia and at the global level. These studies explore various aspects, starting from voters who live in the electoral district, interactions between political parties and candidates and voters, legislative relations with their constituents, to candidates’ chances of being elected. However, studies that specifically discuss raising public support in the process of determining electoral districts involving political parties, government, community organizations and NGOs are still relatively rare.

In this article, we aim to examine and analyze public support and perceptions of the democratic process and political representation in determining electoral districts in Indonesia, especially in Buton Regency. This research seeks to fill the gap in the existing literature and provide a deeper understanding of the importance of public support in the process of determining electoral districts. We want to offer a new perspective on people’s expectations of democratic values ​​and fairness in elections. It is hoped that the results of this study can enrich academic discourse and public policy regarding electoral system reform in Indonesia.

Thus, it is hoped that this research can provide a deeper understanding of the importance of effective and dignified electoral structuring in supporting the implementation of better democracy in Indonesia. Apart from that, this study also aims to provide insight and policy recommendations for the government and stakeholders in improving electoral district structuring policies for the 2024 general election that are transparent, inclusive and responsive to community needs. It is hoped that this research can encourage wider public participation in the electoral democratic process and increase awareness of the importance of deliberative values ​​in democratic practice.

Concept of Arranging Electoral Areas and Seat Allocation

According to Ramlan Surbakti (2013)[15], electoral districts are formed based on aspects of regional administration and/or population size. Each seat in an electoral district can be interpreted as representing a number of community or population votes. However, these votes can only be represented by voters, because not all residents have votes that can be converted into seats.

The arrangement of electoral districts is the essence of a balanced representation system, which regulates the allocation of parliamentary seats to a group or party based on the number of votes they receive from a wide area. In Indonesia, electoral districts are divided into several parts (Sukriono, 2009)[16]. Meanwhile, in the US, electoral districts at the state level also take into account the presence of minority groups (Allen & Stoll, 2023)[17].

Nugroho (2022)[18] revealed that electoral districts are real political battlegrounds, where political parties and legislative candidates compete for voters’ votes. General elections for members of regional legislative councils still apply an open proportional system, the results of which show weaknesses felt by society at large. The phenomenon where voter representatives move away from the people they represent is an interesting topic to be studied and evaluated by the public.

Public Perception in Electoral District Organization

One of the factors that influences voters’ preferences for certain political parties, such as in the United States and England, is the interpersonal relationship between candidates and constituents. Interpersonal here refers to voters’ subjective views, attitudes and assessments of candidates based on their personal characteristics. For example, voters tend to prefer candidates who are considered honest, competent, caring, visionary, and in line with their values (De Magalhães dan Hirvonen, 2023)[19].

Röllicke (2023)[20] shows that the causes of affective distance between voters and politicians include dislike of opposition groups, the emergence of hostility between groups, and the level of understanding of the dynamics of affective polarization. Polarized voter opinions regarding the behavior of political leaders and their impact on election outcomes are the focus of research by Garzia dan Ferreira da Silva (2021)[21]. They develop individualized negative hypotheses that encourage voters to not only choose the best political alternative, but also avoid the worst option. Empirical data analysis was carried out by combining 109 national election surveys from 14 parliamentary democracies in Western Europe, covering voters’ opinions and preferences for main party leaders from 1990 to 2015. The results of the analysis show a strong relationship between negative evaluations of party leaders and vote choice.. The worse voters view a party leader, the more likely they are to vote for another party. Voters’ negative opinions of political leaders apparently influence their preferences and voting behavior more than other party factors. These findings indicate an increase in affective polarization in Western European democracies today.

Voter volatility is influenced by media coverage of issues, parties and candidates during election campaigns (Geers & Bos, 2017)[22]. In Indonesia, agenda setting carried out by private television media is often unfair, showing partiality towards certain presidential candidates in the 2019 election (Sapitri & Nurafifah, 2020)[23]. Research by Berz dan Kroeber (2023)[24] suggests that the attitudes and behavior of MPs may change after an election. These changes can be influenced by spending during the campaign, emphasis on party policy issues after the election, and competition with other parties ahead of the next election. Apart from that, changes in voters’ attitudes can also be caused by the deliberate distribution of negative leaflets by prospective election participants (Duggan & Milazzo, 2023)[25]. In the context of local democratization in Indonesia, the implementation of direct mayoral elections has encouraged practices that are more local in nature, rather than increasing policy accountability and responsiveness (Lurusati & Torenvlied, 2023)[26].

Much literature notes that in recent years, three models of subnational authoritarian regimes have emerged in democratic countries. First, in some countries, there are local authoritarian areas that persist despite the democratization process at the national level. Second, new subnational authoritarian regimes emerge in the context of national democratization. Third, researchers note significant differences in the resilience of subnational authoritarian regimes both between countries and within countries themselves. However, interestingly, research by Buehler et al. (2021)[27] shows that a subnational authoritarian regime has not yet emerged in Indonesia. This is due to the difficulty of subnational elites in controlling local economies, the high degree of economic autonomy of voters, and the rigid institutional structure of Indonesia’s decentralized unitary state, which hinders the emergence of a sustainable subnational authoritarian regime.

Forced elections involving coercive fraud, boycotts by non-state armed groups, and violence resulting in deaths at the assembly constituency level open new opportunities for research on electoral politics across Indian states (Richetta et al., 2023)[28]. Politicized distribution of funds in the short term has no impact on the long-term direction of development. These findings are relevant in India as well as in other countries around the world, where governments use the distribution of state resources for political gain. However, interesting data from Indian states over 30 years (1971-2001) shows that areas represented by members of the ruling coalition experienced more significant increases in literacy (Bhavnani & Jensenius, 2019)[29].

Public perception is expected to measure other useful outcomes, especially those related to the relationship between people’s representatives and the communities they represent. In theory, this relationship should be strong, because an open proportional system indirectly creates harmonious ties between the people and their representatives. Similar research was carried out after the 2019 election, as carried out by Setiawan et al. (2022)[30], which analyzes the patron-client relationship between the community and candidates in electoral district 1, Bangka Regency. These relationships include various forms of interaction, such as personal giving, service, community activities, and vote buying.

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

This research was designed with a survey approach. A survey approach was chosen to collect data on public support in determining electoral districts for legislative members at the district/city level in Indonesia. This method has been widely used by experts around the world, especially before elections and when popular policies are made (Adiyanta, 2019; Ascencio, 2023; Birch & Martínez i Coma, 2023; Casero-Ripollés et al., 2023; Hale, 2016; Johann et al., 2018; Snow, 2022; Sugiyono, 2017; Tiemann, 2022; Vergioglou, 2023; Zimmermann & Kohring, 2020) [34] [7] [10] [37] [36] [8] [35] [38] [32] [31] [33].

In determining electoral districts and seat allocation, the Regency/City General Election Commission in Indonesia, including Buton Regency, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia must fulfill a number of principles. This refers to the provisions of Article 185 of Law no. 7 of 2017 concerning Elections, which regulates seven principles in determining electoral districts. These principles are technically regulated in General Election Commission Regulation Number 6 of 2022 concerning the Arrangement of Electoral Districts, which is explained as follows:

1. The principle of equal value of votes is an effort to ensure that every vote or seat in every electoral district has equal value, based on the principle of one person, one vote, one value.
2. The principle of compliance with a proportional electoral system is compliance in the formation of electoral districts, with a focus on allocating a large number of seats, so that the percentage of seats obtained by each political party is in line with the percentage of valid votes they receive.
3. The principle of proportionality relates to equality in the allocation of seats between electoral districts.
4. The principle of regional integrality relates to the grouping of several sub-districts into one electoral district in border areas, while still maintaining regional integrity and integration. This principle also considers geographical conditions, transportation facilities and ease of access.
5. The principle of equal territorial coverage refers to the formation of electoral districts for members of Regency/City regional people’s representative councils, which consist of one or several sub-districts, or parts of sub-districts, all of which are within one electoral district for members of the provincial people’s representative council.
6. The principle of cohesiveness relates to the formation of electoral districts that take into account history, socio-cultural conditions, customs and the existence of minority groups.
7. The principle of continuity is to consider the composition of electoral districts from previous elections.

To measure public support in determining electoral districts and seat allocation, this research was designed by following the following steps 1-6.

Step 1 Prepare a draft electoral district and seat allocation in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations on 29-30 October 2022. The concept of structuring electoral districts and allocating seats uses seven principles of structuring electoral districts based on population in Buton Regency. The calculation results produce seven designs which are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Electoral District Design and Seat Allocation

Source: Documentation of the results of the electoral district design and seat allocation at the Buton Regency KPU Office in 2021

Step 2 Internal testing of the draft results was carried out on October 31 2022 at the regular plenary meeting of the Buton Regency KPU which was attended by 31 people. Most participants agreed to designs 1, 2, and 3.

Step 3 Public testing for the electoral district design was carried out twice, namely on 10 December 2022 at SMKN 2 Pasarwajo and 15 December 2022 at Rumah Makan Kencana Pasarwajo. Public test results show that design 1 received the highest support, followed by design 3, and finally design 2.

Step 4 Conduct socialization regarding the determination of electoral districts to be held on March 11 2023.

Step 5 Conduct direct surveys and FGD interviews on March 11 2023.

Step 6 Conduct an online survey from March 12 to October 2023.

Participants and Research Context

This research was conducted in Buton Regency, Southeast Sulawesi, with a target of all 79,097 voters. Of this number, there were 39,146 male voters and 39,951 female voters. In 2023, the population in Buton Regency is estimated to reach 119,650 people. Based on these figures, if calculated for the allocation of legislative member seats in Buton Regency for the 2024 General Election, 25 member seats will result in the Buton Regency Regional People’s Representative Council.

Participants in this research consisted of 103 people, 34 people were obtained through direct surveys and 69 people online surveys. Of the total respondents, there were 60 men (58%) and 43 women (42%) (Figure 1a). The professions of the respondents varied greatly, including 38 civil servants/state civil servants (37%), 26 entrepreneurs (25%), 10 farmers (10%), 6 political party administrators (6%), 7 fishermen (7%), 11 students (11%), 4 village heads (4%), and 1 person who is a farmer and housewife (1%) (Figure 1b).

Fig. 1a Respondents by gender

Fig. 1b Variety of respondents’ jobs

Fig. 1c Age range of respondents

Fig. 1d Respondent’s education level

(Survey results data, processed in 2023)

The largest age range of respondents was 37-46 years, with a total of 38 people (37%). Furthermore, the age range 27-36 years was followed by 35 people (34%), 47-56 years was 16 people (16%), 17-26 years was 12 people (12%), and 57-66 years was 2 people (2%). The majority of respondents had an educational background from a Bachelor’s program (S1), namely 68 people (66%), followed by high school graduates totaling 32 people (31%), and graduates of a Masters (S2) program totaling 3 people (3%).

Data Collection Technique

In this research, it is necessary to measure public support regarding General Election Commission Decree Number 19 of 2023 which amends General Election Commission Decree Number 457 of 2022 regarding the number of seats for members of the Regency/City Regional People’s Representative Council in the 2024 General Election. This decision determines electoral districts and Allocation of seats for the DPRD member elections in Buton Regency, which consists of Buton 1 electoral district covering Pasarwajo and Wabula sub-districts with 11 seats, Buton 2 electoral district covering Kapontori and Lasalimu sub-districts with 6 seats, and Buton 3 electoral district covering South Lasalimu, Siotapina and Wolowa sub-districts. with 8 seats.

To collect information regarding public support for the determination of electoral districts in Buton Regency, the steps taken are as follows:

1. A direct survey was carried out by distributing a questionnaire containing several statements regarding public support for the determination of electoral districts, using a modified Likert Scale from Sugiono (2017)[38]. This survey was carried out directly on March 11, 2023;
2. Online survey carried out via Google Sheet from March 12 to October 10 2023;
3. Group interviews were conducted on March 11, 2023; and
4. Documentation is carried out to collect official documents, including reports, field notes and meeting minutes related to the preparation and drafting of electoral district planning and seat allocation.

Data Analysis Techniques

Analysis of survey data is carried out after all data from respondents and other relevant data have been collected. The analysis process uses descriptive statistics, which includes grouping data based on type of respondent, tabulating data for all respondents, and presenting data in table form or frequency distribution (Sugiyono, 2017)[38]. The public support data shown in Figure 2 shows very strong results (the public support index, IDP, is in the range 81 – 100), with 70% of survey participants providing strong support. Meanwhile the remaining 30% provide strong support (IDP 61 – 80), with an average public support index through direct surveys of 83.34% and online surveys of 85.51%.

Figure 2 Public Support in Determining Electoral Districts in Buton Regency (Survey data, processed in 2023)

The results of the public support survey were then compared with data from FGD interviews and documentation. Data from FGD interviews were analyzed through organization and arrangement in Table 1, then interpreted using thematic, narrative, content and interpretative analysis.

DISCUSSION

Active community participation in the process of structuring electoral districts is very important in accordance with applicable legal norms. Even though public support for the establishment of electoral districts in Buton Regency is very strong, it is necessary to analyze various public perceptions which have been compiled in Table 1. It can be seen that there are various views regarding the holding of the 2024 General Election in Indonesia.

Several of these views emphasize the importance of elections as a means of upholding people’s sovereignty in the administration of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia which is based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution (R1). In addition, there is recognition of the need for democratic principles and fairness in the electoral process (R2). This view is interesting to analyze through the theory of deliberative democracy Habermas (1998)[39], as an alternative to traditional representative democracy. This theory emphasizes the importance of rational dialogue and community participation in political decision making. Deliberative democracy involves a process in which citizens participate freely and equally in rational discussion and debate to reach mutual agreement. Elections are one of the important pillars of democracy that enable people to channel their political aspirations and participation. Through elections, government legitimacy is obtained from the votes of the people as the holder of supreme sovereignty. Public support is very necessary, especially to build understanding of democracy, popular sovereignty and general election principles. Deliberative democracy can promote an inclusive society, where all views and interests are accommodated through open and fair dialogue.

Habermas views public space as a place where citizens can gather, discuss and collectively form their opinions. The public sphere must be based on the principles of rational communication, where strong arguments based on truth and justice have greater persuasive power. The resulting political decisions are not only the result of negotiating interests and political compromises, but are also the product of an inclusive and rational dialogue process. The ultimate goal is to reach an agreement based on mutual understanding and the broader public interest.

Table 2. Various Public Perceptions that can be summarized

(Source: Processed survey data, 2023)

In this context, elections provide equal opportunities for the people to elect their representatives, both directly and indirectly, in state administration. Elections also function as an important tool to uphold popular sovereignty, where political power is in the hands of the people as the highest authority.

Apart from that, the principles of democracy and justice are also very important in the election process. Democratic principles emphasize freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, and fair political participation for all citizens. The electoral process should reflect these democratic principles, where every citizen has an equal right to participate in elections and elect their representatives. All citizens must have equal and fair opportunities to influence political decisions. This includes the right to vote and be elected in elections, as well as equal access to political information, freedom of expression and participation in public discussions and debates (Dhal, 1989)[40].

Fairness in elections covers various aspects, such as equal access to political information, equal opportunities for all qualified candidates, integrity in the implementation of elections, and protection of the voting rights of every citizen. This principle of justice is very important to ensure that the election process takes place fairly and transparently. These results, when compared with research conducted by (Jayawinangun, 2019[41]; Juditha & Darmawan, 2018[42]), is indispensable. Open access to information supports and enables first-time voters and millennials to play a role and participate well.

In the context of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, elections must be based on Pancasila as the state ideology and the 1945 Constitution as the constitutional basis. Pancasila prioritizes values ​​such as social justice, unity and democracy, which are the basis for administering the state. The 1945 Constitution functions as a guideline to ensure the implementation of elections in accordance with the principles of democracy and justice. Thus, views that emphasize the importance of elections as a means of upholding people’s sovereignty in the administration of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution (R1), as well as recognition of the need for democratic principles and justice in the election process (R2), reflect the values modern democracy that involves active community participation, as well as the principles of democracy and fairness in general elections.

Apart from that, the arrangement of electoral districts (dapil) and hopes for the success of the 2024 elections have received positive responses from various parties (R3, R8). This hope arises because public involvement has been carried out both directly and indirectly from the start (Aliano et al., 2024[43]; Chandranegara & Umara, 2020[44]; Jurdi, 2014[45]; Perdana et al., 2022)[18]. This shows recognition of the efforts of the General Election Commission and its staff in carrying out their duties (R4) (Azhar et al., 2023)[1]. In addition, coordination and supervision of all parties involved in election supervision, especially at each polling station, is considered very important for the success of the election (R6). This condition is in line with the results of other research related to supervision at the election stage (Amalia, 2022[5]; Apriliansyah et al., 2020[46]; Setiawan et al., 2022)[30]. Public involvement in policy determination, including the arrangement of electoral districts, can provide new enthusiasm for administrators of power through appreciation from various parties (Friedman, 2023[47]; Shulman et al., 2022)[48]. Although there are differences with other research, especially regarding public support which is expected to provide appropriate rewards (Lurusati & Torenvlied, 2023)[26].

Although there are parties who are satisfied with the current division of electoral districts and seat allocation, they suggest that each electoral district can elect candidates who truly represent the people and adhere to the principles of coverage and control of territory during elections (R10, R11) (Ascencio, 2023 [26]; Birch & Martínez i Coma, 2023[10]; Hale, 2016 [36]; Johann et al., 2018 [8]; Koskimaa et al., 2023 [9]; Zimmermann & Kohring, 2020) [33]. This hope is important and should be conveyed to stakeholders, especially political parties. The electoral system in Indonesia stipulates that determining candidates in each electoral district is the authority of political parties (Aliano et al., 2024 [43]; Dedi, 2019 [49]; Hidayaturrahman, 2020 [3]; Rofelawaty & Kadir, 2019 [50]; Sugiarto et al., 2014 [51]; Sukriono, 2009 [16]; Surbakti et al., 2008, 2011; Surbakti & Supriyanto, 2013[15], [52], [53]; Zoelva, 2013 [54]). This research also found calls for ongoing adjustments to the determination of electoral districts in the future, to ensure fairness in vote distribution and the need for structuring electoral districts (R13, R18), which have even been voiced over the last 10 years (Surbakti & Supriyanto, 2013)[15]. Overall, there is agreement among respondents regarding the importance of good electoral district planning and consistent application of election rules for the success of the 2024 elections (R9, R20, R29). However, it is important to note that there is awareness of the need for broader consolidation and engagement with society, especially at the grassroots, to ensure a more inclusive electoral process (R25) (Aliano et al., 2024 [43]; Andini et al., 2018 [55]; Chandranegara & Umara, 2020 [44]; Kartikasari, 2017 [56]; Perdana et al., 2022 [18]).

These various perspectives underscore the complexity of public perceptions regarding electoral district arrangements and the upcoming elections in 2024 (Azhar et al., 2023[1]; Pardede, 2014[57]; Surbakti et al., 2008 [52]; Surbakti & Supriyanto, 2013) [15]. It is critical for policymakers and stakeholders to heed these viewpoints in order to address concerns and ensure a fair and successful electoral process.

CONCLUSION

In general, there is strong support from the public for efforts to organize and determine electoral districts as well as the allocation of seats for members of the Regional People’s Representative Council by the General Election Commission in the 2024 Election. This solid support is valuable capital for election organizers to ensure quality elections. However, the public also emphasizes the importance of always prioritizing the principles of popular sovereignty, democracy and justice in every election process, in accordance with the values ​​of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. The public hopes that the 2024 elections can be successful and of high quality by emphasizing consistency, transparency and honesty. , and fairness in enforcing election rules. Therefore, it is necessary to consolidate and strengthen the participation of all levels of society, especially grassroots groups, so that the upcoming election process is more inclusive and can accommodate the aspirations of various elements of the Indonesian nation.

RECOMMENDATION

The government and election organizers need to consider input from the general public in improving the political system and holding general elections in the future. This is important to ensure the legitimacy and quality of democracy in Indonesia. Apart from that, there needs to be a strengthening of the role of election supervisory institutions, both the Election Supervisory Body and the Election Supervisory Committee at all levels. This supervisory institution must be truly independent and have full authority to ensure the integrity and quality of election implementation. On the other hand, broad and in-depth socialization regarding the importance of citizen participation in electoral democracy needs to be increased. This outreach can increase political awareness and voter participation in elections. Finally, the government and political parties must proactively encourage aspirations and ensure the full inclusion of marginalized groups, such as women, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples and religious minorities, so that they can be well represented in the political process in Indonesia.

Thank-You Note

The author would like to express his deepest appreciation to the General Election Commission of the Republic of Indonesia, the General Election Commission of Southeast Sulawesi Province, and the General Election Commission of Buton Regency for their trust in giving several authors the opportunity to serve as commissioners for the last 8 to 10 years, making it easier to collect required data. The author also thanks Dr. Fahmi Gunawan, Head of the Research and Publication Center of the Kendari State Islamic Institute, for all the encouragement and various useful discussions.

REFERENCES

1. S. Azhar, T. P. Situmorang, and B. Ginting, “Policy on the Arrangement and Determination of the Electoral District of the DPRD Deli Serdang Regency for the 2019,” Perspektif, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 712–728, 2023.
2. A. R. Idrus, D. A. Pulubuhu, and G. A. Kambo, “Dinamika perumusan kebijakan penataan daerah pemilihan pada pemilihan umum tahun 2019 : Studi kasus KPU Kabupaten Kepulauan Selayar,” JAKPP (Jurnal Anal. Kebijak. Pelayanan Publik), vol. Volume 5, no. No.2, Desember 2019, pp. 125–143, 2019, doi: 10.31947/jakpp.v1i2.8143.
3. M. Hidayaturrahman, “Peran Wakil Rakyat Dalam Pembangunan di Daerah Pemilihan Sumenep,” J. Sos. Polit., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 128, 2020, doi: 10.22219/sospol.v6i1.5808.
4. W. Berenschot, W. Capri, and D. Dhian, “A quiet revolution? Village head elections and the democratization of rural Indonesia,” Crit. Asian Stud., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 126–146, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14672715.2021.1871852.
5. D. C. Amalia, “Daerah Pemilihan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Kota Pasuruan pada Pemilihan Umum Tahun 2019,” J. Educ. Hum. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1440–1448, 2022, doi: 10.34007/jehss.v4i3.889.
6. L. McKay, “Does constituency focus improve attitudes to MPs? A test for the UK,” J. Legis. Stud., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–26, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1080/13572334.2020.1726635.
7. S. J. Ascencio, “Nomination rules and the calculus of mobilization: Theory and evidence from Mexico,” Elect. Stud., vol. 82, no. 102578, p. p.1-11, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102578.
8. D. Johann, K. K. von Königslöw, S. Kritzinger, and K. Thomas, “Intra-campaign changes in voting preferences: The impact of media and party communication,” Polit. Commun., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 261–286, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1339222.
9. V. Koskimaa, M. Mattila, A. Papageorgiou, and Å. von Schoultz, “In the right place, at the right time: Opportunity structures and candidates’ chances of getting elected for the first time,” Elect. Stud., vol. 84, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102626.
10. S. Birch and F. Martínez i Coma, “Natural disasters and the limits of electoral clientelism: Evidence from Honduras,” Elect. Stud., vol. 85, no. 102651, pp. 1–11, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102651.
11. A. Alexander, N. Charron, and M. K. Justesen, “Female representation and electoral clientelism: New insights from South African municipal electionss,” Elect. Stud., vol. 82, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.10t2580.
12. P. Rathgeb and M. R. Busemeyer, “How to study the populist radical right and the welfare state?,” West Eur. Polit., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2022, doi: 10.1080/01402382.2021.1925421.
13. S. Arnesen, D. A. Christensen, and H. Finseraas, “Look to Denmark or not? An experimental study of the Social Democrats’ strategic choices,” Elect. Stud., vol. 84, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102629.
14. J. Cramer, “Effective governance of circular economies: An international comparison,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 343, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130874.
15. R. Surbakti and D. Supriyanto, Partisipasi Warga Masyarakat Dalam Proses Penyelenggaraan Pemilihan Umum, Cet. T.Ser. Jakarta: Kemitraan bagi Pembaharuan Tata Pemerintahan, 2013. [Online]. Available: www.kemitraan.or.id
16. D. Sukriono, “Menggagas Sistem Pemilihan Umum di Indonesia,” J. Konstitusi, vol. II, no. Nomor 1 Juni 2009, pp. 1–23, 2009.
17. G. Allen and H. Stoll, “A number most convenient? The representational consequences of legislative size,” Elect. Stud., vol. 82, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102594.
18. A. Perdana et al., Tata Kelola Pemilu. Komisi Pemilihan Umum Republik Indonesia, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/download/61649422/Buku_TKP20191231-13262-5cm9ud.pdf
19. L. De Magalhães and S. Hirvonen, “A second chance elsewhere. Estimating the effect of winning (vs. being the runner-up) on future electoral prospects,” Elect. Stud., vol. 83, no. (2023) 102612, pp. 1–6, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102612.
20. L. Röllicke, “Polarisation, identity and affect – conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems,” Elect. Stud., vol. 85, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102655.
21. D. Garzia and F. Ferreira da Silva, “Negative personalization and voting behavior in 14 parliamentary democracies, 1961–2018,” Elect. Stud., vol. 71, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102300.
22. S. Geers and L. Bos, “Priming issues, party visibility, and party evaluations: The impact on vote switching,” Polit. Commun., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 344–366, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1201179.
23. H. Sapitri and N. L. Nurafifah, “Private Television Media and Political in Presindential Election 2019 from the Agenda Setting of Perspective,” J. Penelit. Komun. Dan Opini Publik, vol. 24, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.33299/jpkop.24.2.3024.
24. J. Berz and C. Kroeber, “Walking the line: Electoral cycles and the shift in legislative priorities among German parliamentarians,” Elect. Stud., vol. 83, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102595.
25. A. Duggan and C. Milazzo, “Going on the offensive: Negative messaging in British general elections,” Elect. Stud., vol. 83, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102600.
26. Y. Lurusati and R. Torenvlied, “Does local democratization improve societal outcomes? Effects of mayoral direct elections in Indonesia,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 658, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-02141-8.
27. M. Buehler, R. Nataatmadja, and I. Anugrah, “Limitations to subnational authoritarianism: Indonesian local government head elections in comparative perspective,” Reg. Fed. Stud., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 381–404, 2021, doi: 10.1080/13597566.2021.1918388.
28. C. Richetta, I. Harbers, and E. van Wingerden, “The subnational electoral coercion in India (SECI) data set, 1985–2015,” Elect. Stud., vol. 85, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102662.
29. R. R. Bhavnani and F. R. Jensenius, “Voting for development? Ruling coalitions and literacy in India,” Elect. Stud., vol. 62, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2019.102069.
30. I. Setiawan, Ibrahim, and Ranto, “Patronase dan klintelisme politik (Studi pada masyarakat daerah pemilihan I, Kabupaten Bangka di pemilihan legislatif 2019),” BULLET J. Multidisiplin Ilmu, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1255–1262, 2022.
31. I. Vergioglou, “Electoral effects of investment subsidies in national and European elections,” J. Eur. Public Policy, vol. 30, no. No. 10, pp. 2123–2142, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2251812.
32. G. Tiemann, “Conditions of proximity and directional voting: Voter sophistication, political information, and party identification,” Elect. Stud., vol. 75, no. 102436, p. p.1-8, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102436.
33. F. Zimmermann and M. Kohring, “Mistrust, Disinforming News, and Vote Choice: A Panel Survey on the Origins and Consequences of Believing Disinformation in the 2017 German
34. Parliamentary Election,” Polit. Commun., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 215–237, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1686095.
35. F. C. S. Adiyanta, “Hukum dan Studi Penelitian Empiris: Penggunaan Metode Survey sebagai Instrumen Penelitian Hukum Empiris,” Adm. Law Gov. J., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 697–709, 2019, doi: 10.14710/alj.v2i4.697-709.
36. D. Snow, “Who gets persuaded? The heterogeneity of campaign effects in the Brexit referendum,” Elect. Stud., vol. 80, no. 102528, p. p.1-12, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102528.
37. W. Hale, “Turkey’s domestic politics, public opinion and Middle East policy,” Palgrave Commun., vol. 2, no. 16081, p. p.1-8, 2016, doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.81.
38. A. Casero-Ripollés, J. Tuñón, and L. Bouza-García, “The European approach to online disinformation: geopolitical and regulatory dissonance,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 657, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-02179-8.
39. Sugiyono, Penerbit Pustaka Ramadhan, Bandung. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228075212.pdf
40. J. Habermas, Inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. MIT Press, 1998.
41. R. A. Dhal, Democracy and Its critics. 1989.
42. R. Jayawinangun, “Tipology of Beginner Voters Based on Access to Political Information in Social Media,” J. Penelit. Komun. Dan Opini Publik, vol. 23, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.33299/jpkop.23.2.2001.
43. C. Juditha and J. J. Darmawan, “Use of Digital Media and Political Participation Milenial Generation,” J. Penelit. Komun. Dan Opini Publik, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 94–109, 2018, doi: 10.33299/jpkop.22.2.1628.
44. Y. A. Aliano, M. J. Adon, K. Sekolah, T. Filsafat, T. Widya, and S. Malang, “Percaturan Politik Genealogi Kekuasaan dalam Sistem Pemilu ‘ 2024 ’ di Indonesia Menurut Etika Michel Foucault,” J. Filsafat Indones., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 474–485, 2024.
45. I. S. Chandranegara and N. S. Umara, “Optimalisasi pembatasan Dana Kampanye Pemilihan Umum Kepala Daerah Sebagai Pencegahan Investasi Politik Yang Koruptif,” Mimb. Huk. – Fak. Huk. Univ. Gadjah Mada, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 30–54, 2020, doi: 10.22146/jmh.47512.
46. F. Jurdi, Budaya Politik, Sosialisasi Politik dan Partisipasi Politik. 2014.
47. M. Apriliansyah, A. Sekretari, and B. Luhur, “Effectiveness of the Aspiration House Services,” J. Sekr. dan Adm., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 24–34, 2020.
48. S. Friedman, “Climbing the Velvet Drainpipe: Class Background and Career Progression within the UK Civil Service,” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 563–577, 2023, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muac045.
49. H. C. Shulman, M. D. Sweitzer, O. M. Bullock, J. C. Coronel, R. M. Bond, and S. Poulsen, “Predicting Vote Choice and Election Outcomes from Ballot Wording: The Role of Processing Fluency in Low Information Direct Democracy Elections,” Polit. Commun., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 652–673, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2022.2092920.
50. A. Dedi, “Analisis Sistem Pemilihan Umum Serentak,” J. MODERAT, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 213–226, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.unigal.ac.id/index.php/moderat/article/view/2676
51. B. Rofelawaty and A. Kadir, “Analisis determinan kesesuaian penerapan peraturan komisi pemilu RI no. 5 tahun 2017 tentang dana kampanye peserta pemilihan gubernur dan wakil gubernur, bupati dan wakil bupati, dan/atau walikota dan wakil walikota,” J. Komun. Bisnis dan Manaj., vol. Vol. 5, no. No. 2, Juli 2018, pp. 30–48, 2019, doi: 10.31602/al-kalam.v5i2.1711.
52. B. Sugiarto, O. C. Pratiwi, and A. A. S. Akbar, “Strategi pemenangan dalam pemilihan kepala daerah,” Masyarakat, Kebud. dan Polit., vol. 27, no. 3, p. 143, 2014, doi: 10.20473/mkp.v27i32014.143-151.
53. R. Surbakti, D. Supriyanto, and T. Santoso, Perekayasaan sistem pemilihan umum untuk pembangunan tata politik demokratis, kemitraan bagi pembaharuan tata pemerintahan di Indonesia, Pertama, N. Jakarta: Kemitraan Partnership for Governance Reform Indonesia, 2008. [Online]. Available: www.kemitraan.or.id
54. R. Surbakti, D. Supriyanto, and T. Santoso, Memaksimalkan Derajat Keterwakilan Partai Politik dan Meningkatkan Akuntabilitas Calon Terpilih, Cet. I Buk. Jakarta: Kemitraan bagi Pembaharuan Tata Pemerintahan, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.kemitraan.or.id
55. H. Zoelva, “Problematika Penyelesaian Sengketa Hasil Pemilukada oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi,” J. Konstitusi, vol. 10, no. Nomor 3, September 2013, 2013, [Online]. Available: http://www.kpu.go.id/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5607&Itemid=76
56. B. N. Andiri, F. Monteiro, and Soebandi, “Analisis kepatuhan, transparansi dan akuntabilitas laporan dana kampanye partai politik dalam pengelolaan penerimaan dan penggunaan dana kampanye (Studi Kasus Di KPU Kabupaten Sidoarjo),” Media Mahard., vol. Vol. 17, no. No. 1 September 2018, pp. 25–45, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29062/mahardika.v17i1.56.
57. W. Kartikasari, “Menjamin Pemilu Inklusif : Studi Tentang Pemungutan,” Airlangga, pp. 1–11, 2017.
    M. Pardede, “Implikasi Sistem Pemilihan Umum Indonesia,” J. Rechts Vinding Media Pembin. Huk. Nas., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 85, 2014, doi: 10.33331/rechtsvinding.v3i1.58.