The following essay can be described as an election pledge research where the presidential pledges are compared to the politics they implement when in power. The purpose is to see if they are genuine with their promises or just seeking the votes of the public. The study will focus on three election campaigns, 2008, 2012 and 2016. This essay will implement two theories: Rational choice theory and the Mandate Model. To answer this two questions will be dealt with. They are as follows: How likely is it that the promises made during a presidential campaign are kept? What category of pledges are kept to the most extent and in what way does this influence the voter? To deal with those questions this essay will apply a case study design that implement the methods of a theory consuming- and qualitative text analysis. The result of the study showed that for the three studied elections a minority of the pledges were fulfilled. But as previous studies also have done is adding fulfilled pledges and compromises. In that case 71,18% of the election pledges were at least partly fulfilled. The pledges that were kept to the greatest extent was economic aid and financial support. The influence on the voter depends if they are satisfied by compromises or just want pledges to be kept.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:lnu-100466 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Johannesson, Ludvig |
| Publisher | Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för statsvetenskap (ST) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds