Figure 1
Perceived degree of parallelism by candidates and voters
Comments: Findings based on voter's survey and five elections.
Figure 2
Perceived parallelism by elections
Comments: Candidates that score very high and rather high.
Table 1
Comparison of perceived parallelism in elections
| Unstandardised coefficients (B) | Std. error | Standardised coefficients (Beta) | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 3.845 | 0.049 | – | 77.711 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2016 | −0.269 | 0.069 | −0.171 | −3.899 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2017 | −0.412 | 0.069 | −0.259 | −5.926 | 0 |
| Municipal, 2014 | −0.473 | 0.075 | −0.268 | −6.331 | 0 |
| Municipal, 2018 | −0.37 | 0.073 | −0.218 | −5.096 | 0 |
[i] Comments: The table shows a linear regression model for perceived parallelism in different elections, where the 2013 elections are a reference variable. See Appendix 1 for other elections as a reference.
Table 2
Perceived parallelism in parties
| Unstandardised coefficients (B) | Std. error | Standardised coefficients (Beta) | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 3.33 | 0.086 | – | 38.627 | 0 |
| Bright Future | −0.459 | 0.262 | −0.088 | −1.753 | .08 |
| Progressive Party | −0.112 | 0.131 | −0.051 | −0.854 | .393 |
| Alliance Party | −0.428 | 0.183 | −0.124 | −2.333 | .02 |
| Left Green Party | 0.248 | 0.177 | 0.075 | 1.401 | .162 |
| Pirate Party | 0.065 | 0.109 | 0.039 | 0.597 | .551 |
| Other parties | −0.068 | 0.155 | −0.024 | −0.437 | .662 |
| Excluded | 0.025 | 0.12 | 0.013 | 0.213 | .831 |
[i] Comments: As this coefficients table for the dependent variable “perceived political parallelism”, with the Independence Party as a reference variable, demonstrates, the Social Democratic Alliance and Bright Future voters show a significantly lower degree of perceived parallelism than the Independence Party voters, and also lower than the voters of other parties.
Table 3
Perceived parallelism (controlling for age and time of elections)
| Unstandardised coefficients (B) | Std. error | Standardised coefficients (Beta) | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 3.522 | 0.1 | – | 35.155 | 0 |
| Bright Future | −0.251 | 0.101 | −0.105 | −2.485 | .013 |
| Peoples Party | 0.248 | 0.128 | 0.076 | 1.938 | .053 |
| Progressive Party | 0.094 | 0.085 | 0.052 | 1.111 | .267 |
| Centre Party | 0.234 | 0.143 | 0.062 | 1.635 | .102 |
| Pirate Party | 0.02 | 0.097 | 0.009 | 0.208 | .836 |
| Alliance Party | −0.433 | 0.103 | −0.177 | −4.208 | 0 |
| Left Green Party | −0.043 | 0.088 | −0.022 | −0.481 | .631 |
| Reconstruction Party | −0.388 | 0.111 | −0.144 | −3.489 | .001 |
| Other parties | 0.142 | 0.082 | 0.088 | 1.728 | .084 |
[i] Comments: This coefficients table shows the aggregate degree of perceived political parallelism of candidates in five elections with the Independence Party as a reference, controlling for time of elections and age.
Figure 3
Candidates who claim that a medium supports no one policy more than another
Comments: The figure shows the percentage of candidates in all five elections that say the relevant medium supports no one policy more than another. Two of the mediums asked about, Stundin and Kjarninn, are relatively new Internet-based media that are self-proclaimed as independent and focus heavily on politics. They were added to the surveys in the 2016 elections. RÚV, the state broadcasting service, is by far perceived the least ideologically biased, while the subscription daily Morgunblaðið is considered by almost everybody as ideologically slanted to the right.
Table 4
Candidate views on media position
| Media outlet | F-ratio (df) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|
| Fréttablaðið | F (9; 720) = 7.072 | .00 |
| Morgunblaðið | F (9; 727) = 9.181 | .00 |
| DV | F (9; 727) = 6.318 | .00 |
| Viðskiptablaðið | F (9; 709) = 2.624 | .05 |
| RÚV | F (9; 721) = 29.148 | .00 |
| Stöð 2/Bylgjan | F (9; 719) = 9.375 | .00 |
| Kjarninn | F (9; 438) = 10.813 | .00 |
| Stundin | F (9; 439) = 5.087 | .00 |
[i] Comments: The table shows the results of a one-way anova test for the effect of a candidate's party on a candidate's view on political stand of different media in the combined results for all five elections. The effect is significant for all media. F(df between groups; df within groups) = F-ratio.
Table 5
Voters’ views on media position
| Media outlet | F-ratio (df) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|
| Fréttablaðið | F (15; 514) = 5.760 | .000 |
| Morgunblaðið | F (15; 524) = 10.758 | .000 |
| DV | F (15; 496) = 5.294 | .000 |
| Viðskiptablaðið | F (14; 370) = 2.097 | .011 |
| Fréttastofa RÚV | F (15; 532) = 5.757 | .000 |
| Stöð2 / Bylgjan | F (15; 506) = 2.238 | .005 |
[i] Comments: Results of a one-way anova test for the effect of a voter's choice of party on a voter's view on political stand of different media in the 2016 parliamentary elections. The effect is significant for all media. The lines in the table stand for the following: F (df between groups; df within groups) = F-ratio.
| Unstandardised Coefficients (B) | Std. Error | Standardised Coefficients (Beta) | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary elections, 2013 as reference | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.845 | 0.049 | – | 77.711 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2016 | −0.269 | 0.069 | −0.171 | −3.899 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2017 | −0.412 | 0.069 | −0.259 | −5.926 | 0 |
| Municipal, 2014 | −0.473 | 0.075 | −0.268 | −6.331 | 0 |
| Municipal, 2018 | −0.37 | 0.073 | −0.218 | −5.096 | 0 |
| Parliamentary elections, 2016 as reference | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.576 | 0.048 | – | 74.214 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2013 | 0.269 | 0.069 | 0.168 | 3.899 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2017 | −0.142 | 0.069 | −0.09 | −2.077 | 0.038 |
| Municipal, 2014 | −0.204 | 0.074 | −0.115 | −2.757 | 0.006 |
| Municipal, 2018 | −0.101 | 0.072 | −0.059 | −1.404 | 0.161 |
| Parliamentary elections, 2017 as reference | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.433 | 0.049 | – | 70.436 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2013 | 0.412 | 0.069 | 0.257 | 5.926 | 0 |
| Municipal, 2014 | −0.061 | 0.074 | −0.035 | −0.825 | 0.409 |
| Municipal, 2018 | 0.042 | 0.072 | 0.025 | 0.577 | 0.564 |
| Parliament, 2016 | 0.142 | 0.069 | 0.09 | 2.077 | 0.038 |
| Municipal elections, 2014 as reference | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.372 | 0.056 | – | 60.262 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2013 | 0.473 | 0.075 | 0.295 | 6.331 | 0 |
| Municipal,2018 | 0.103 | 0.077 | 0.061 | 1.333 | 0.183 |
| Parliament, 2016 | 0.204 | 0.074 | 0.129 | 2.757 | 0.006 |
| Parliament, 2017 | 0.061 | 0.074 | 0.039 | 0.825 | 0.409 |
| Municipal elections, 2018 as reference | |||||
| (Constant) | 3.475 | 0.053 | – | 65.383 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2013 | 0.37 | 0.073 | 0.231 | 5.096 | 0 |
| Parliament, 2016 | 0.101 | 0.072 | 0.064 | 1.404 | 0.161 |
| Parliament, 2017 | −0.042 | 0.072 | −0.026 | −0.577 | 0.564 |
| Municipal, 2014 | −0.103 | 0.077 | −0.058 | −1.333 | 0.183 |