KONDA BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ELECTION AND VOTER PROFILES

June’19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3

2. BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF 23 JUNE ISTANBUL MAYORSHIP ELECTION ...... 6

2.1. General Result ...... 6 2.2. Districts Result ...... 6 2.3. Change in Districts ...... 8 2.4. Socioeconomic Situation of the Districts and Voting Distribution ...... 9 2.5. Clusterings in the Political Geography of Districts ...... 13 2.6. Vote Shifts ...... 16 2.7. Vote Shifts Analysis ...... 18 2.8. Analysis on the Basis of Istanbul Neighborhoods ...... 23

3. 23 JUNE VOTER PROFILES ...... 39

3.1. Change in Preferences in Istanbul Based on Political Preferences ...... 40 3.2. Change in Preferences in Istanbul According to Demographic Clusters ...... 42 3.3. Candidate Preference Based on Media and Social Media Preferences ...... 59 3.4. Basic Fİndings in Voter Profiles ...... 62

4. EVALUATION ...... 63

5. RESEARCH ID ...... 69

5.1. The General Description of the Survey ...... 69 5.2. The Sample ...... 69

6. GLOSSARY of TERMS ...... 70

6.1. Questions and Response Options ...... 71

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 2 / 71

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We are sharing this report with the public following the re-run of the Istanbul Metropolitan Mayoral election. It consists of two main parts and in the first part, "ballotbox analysis", the results of the June 23rd election is compared, at the neighborhood and district levels, with those of March 31st Local Elections and June 24th 2018 General Elections. Besides the actual outcome, the "political profiles" part is based on three field surveys representative of Istanbul and allows you to examine how candidate preferences have changed in various social clusters.

The field survey forming the basis of our June’19 Barometer report, the 99th of the Barometer series, has been conducted on June 15-16 only in Istanbul. Within the scope of the research, 3498 people were interviewed face to face in their households in 157 neighborhoods in Istanbul representing Istanbul voter population.

After the Cumhur Alliance had submitted an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Election Council (YSK) over the results of the Istanbul Metropolitan Mayoral election and the YSK decided to repeat the elections, it has become the most important issue of the political agenda in . Therefore, we made an exception for June’19 Barometer and did our fieldwork only in Istanbul. We shared our election prediction based on this survey first with our subscribers and then with the public. Based on our prediction, we had foreseen that Imamoğlu would receive 54 percent and Binali Yıldırım 45 percent of the votes. According to unofficial results, Imamoğlu received 54 percent and Yıldırım 45 percent of the votes and this confirmed our measurement.

Ballot Box Analysis When we compare the vote rates of E. İmamoğlu and B. Yıldırım considering the analysis results1 of the income distribution in 2017 on the basis of neighborhoods and districts in İstanbul, which is calculated and announced within the scope of al ‘My Neighborhood İstanbul Project’ by Faculty of Economics;

✓ Although there is no special difference between E. İmamoğlu votes and opposing block votes in the lowest and highest income districts, E. İmamoğlu votes has increased slightly in the middle income districts compared to the opposition block votes.

✓ On the other hand, B. Yıldırım's vote rate decreased in all districts compared to the 24 June votes of the incumbent bloc, but decreased slightly at a higher rate in the mid-income districts. - In addition, when clustering analysis is conducted according to the distribution patterns of votes in the districts of Istanbul in the elections, five different political behavior patterns emerged.

1 https://www.mahallemistanbul.com/MahallemSEGE_/

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 3 / 71

‘The Clusters in District Political Geography’ section, where these five clusters are described in order to realize the basic voter movements, contains important clues.

When we compare it with 31 March IBB Mayorship votes, it is seen that the vote of Imamoğlu has increased by 5.4 points and the vote of Yıldırım decreased by only 2.1 points. It can be said that the increase of the vote for İmamoğlu did not have a single source but he increased his votes from all clusters.

When we compare it with the distribution of Presidential votes on June 24, 2018, it is observed that the votes of İmamoğlu increased by 8.7 points, of which 6.3 points were caused by Demirtaş or HDP votes. It is assumed that 3.7 points of the 6.1 point decrease observed in the vote of Yıldırım compared to Erdoğan is composed of the incumbent block voters who did not participate in the election, while votes at a level of 2 points have shifted towards Imamoğlu. Based on these two comparisons, it is possible to say that incumbent bloc voters at the rate of 1-2 points have shifted towards the opposition bloc, when Istanbul election was renewed on June 23. On the other hand, even in a period of deep economic and political turmoil, the transition between the blocks is only at the level of 1-2 points, which indicates how strong the polarization still is.

Analysis Based on Istanbul Neighborhoods Considering the neighborhoods, we see that the neighborhoods with low participation rates are either in the periphery districts or in the city center, in .

According to the previous election, the neighborhoods where participation increased at most were the coastal districts of Beşiktaş, Kadıköy and Bakırköy, while participation in the periphery districts decreased compared to 31 March.

While Imamoglu had high vote rates in the same regions in both elections, it was the first finding that the number of neighborhoods, where he received more than 50 percent of votes on 23 June has increased considerably.

Yıldırım seems to have lost votes in almost every neighborhood. In general, the protects his vote rate in the districts such as Eyüpsultan, Arnavutköy, Çekmeköy, , Ümraniye, which can be described as the second ring after the city center, whereas he experienced a higher rate of loss of votes in the outermost districts and central districts.

In the analysis we made considering the average income level on the basis of districts, the votes of İmamoğlu in the top 10 districts with the highest income level are between 71.1 percent and 49.3 percent and more than Yıldırım in all of them. On the other hand, there is a contentious situation in the last 10 districts where the average household income is the lowest. It is understood that the vote differences in the districts, which are in the middle of household income ranking, are in favor of E.Imamoğlu.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 4 / 71

Political Profiles Considering the analysis of the voter profiles of the candidates and the candidate preference in different profiles together, which we reveal by comparing the data of 3 different Istanbul- specific surveys conducted during the 31 March local elections and the subsequent Istanbul elections, we reach the following findings:

• Binali Yıldırım's vote seems to have remained at the same fixed point before March 31 and June 23 process. It is necessary to interpret this situation considering that the rate of swing voters decreased at every stage. If his vote remains fixed in any way, when the rate swing voters decreases, it means that the vote for Yıldırım has decreased. This situation occurs in almost all social clusters. There are very rare social clusters in which Yıldırım has increased his vote in this process. • Imamoğlu's vote, on the other hand, has increased in all components of Istanbul residents both before and after 31 March. Imamoğlu shows a visible increase especially among the youth, students, and unemployed and most importantly among the Kurds. • Binali Yıldırım's vote is in line with the Ak Parti vote in the Barometer data in demographic clusters. As the education level and income level increases, his vote rate decreases. As age and the level of religiousness increase, his vote increases, too. • The rate of the Ak Parti voters, who were undecided about the candidate, is slightly and gradually increasing in three studies. Therefore, the rate of preferring Yıldırım falls from 95 to 90 percent. Based on these data, we can argue that in addition to the increase in votes of Imamoğlu, a group of Ak Parti partisans did not go to the polls. • HDP voters have clearly supported İmamoğlu since March. When we look at all the findings together, we can say that HDP partisans played a critical role in the Istanbul elections. • A significant number of MHP voters seem to have given up to cast a vote for Yıldırım at the last stage. However, it is difficult to say that they all preferred Imamoğlu.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 5 / 71

2. BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF 23 JUNE ISTANBUL METROPOLITAN MAYORSHIP ELECTION

2.1. General Result

Ekrem İmamoğlu was elected as the result of the distribution of votes in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality elections through the emergence of a remarkable differentiation with 31 March elections.

15-16June 23 June Election Result KONDA Barometer2 Voter 10.570.222 100.0 The votes cast 8.925.056 100.0 Valid vote 8.746.458 Non-voter 1.701.558 15.6 Invalid vote 172.112 1.7 B.Yıldırım 3.935.444 37.2 45.0 45.0 E.İmamoğlu 4.741.870 44.9 54.2 54.0 Other 76.569 0.7 0.9 1.0

The electoral turnout was 83.9 percent. Ekrem İmamoğlu received 54.2 percent of the valid votes, while Binali Yıldırım received 45 percent and Ekrem İmamoğlu was elected as Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor.

Examining the voter distribution on June 23 by considering the total voter as 100 including non- voters and invalid votes, 44.9 percent of the voters casted a vote for İmamoğlu, 37.2 percent for Yıldırım, and 0.7 percent for other candidates, while 15.6 per cent did not participate in the election and 1.7 percent of the vote was considered invalid.

2.2. Districts Result

The districts where E. İmamoğlu reached the highest percentage of votes and reached more than 50 percent are the following: Beşiktaş (71.1%), Kadıköy (67.8%), Bakırköy (66.3%) Şişli (59.7%), Adalar (58.5%), Maltepe (52.4%), (51.1%), Beylikdüzü (51.1%) and Çatalca (50.6%).

On the other hand, the districts where Yıldırım reached the highest rate of votes are the following: Sultanbeyli (53.5%), (50.1%), Arnavutköy (48.4%), (48.1%),Bağcılar (46%) (43.6%), Ümraniye (43.2%), Gaziosmanpaşa (42.7%), Başakiehir (42.7%), Sile (42.2%), Kağıthane (41.5%).

2 KONDA statement on June 19 shared with our subscribers and the public: http://konda.com.tr/tr/duyuru/23-haziran-secimine-dair-kamuoyu-aciklamasi/

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 6 / 71

Voter Non-voter Invalid İmamoğlu Yıldırım Other ADALAR 100.0 16.1 1.4 58.5 23.6 0.3 ARNAVUTKÖY 100.0 17.4 2.2 31.1 48.4 0.9 ATAŞEHİR 100.0 14.5 1.4 50.4 33.1 0.6 AVCILAR 100.0 16.8 1.7 50.6 30.5 0.5 BAĞCILAR 100.0 16.8 1.8 34.6 46.0 0.8 BAHÇELİEVLER 100.0 16.4 1.7 42.4 38.7 0.7 BAKIRKÖY 100.0 15.2 1.2 66.3 16.9 0.5 BAŞAKŞEHİR 100.0 15.0 1.8 39.6 42.7 1.0 BAYRAMPAŞA 100.0 14.4 1.7 42.5 40.7 0.7 BEŞİKTAŞ 100.0 14.1 1.0 71.1 13.4 0.5 100.0 15.3 1.6 41.3 40.9 0.8 BEYLİKDÜZÜ 100.0 15.7 1.5 51.1 31.2 0.6 BEYOĞLU 100.0 19.5 1.6 40.6 37.6 0.7 BÜYÜKÇEKMECE 100.0 16.6 1.6 48.1 33.3 0.4 ÇATALCA 100.0 13.0 2.0 50.6 33.9 0.5 ÇEKMEKÖY 100.0 13.6 1.7 42.9 41.1 0.6 ESENLER 100.0 16.1 1.8 31.1 50.1 0.8 100.0 19.7 1.8 44.9 33.0 0.6 EYÜPSULTAN 100.0 14.2 1.6 45.4 38.1 0.7 FATİH 100.0 18.5 1.6 39.3 39.2 1.4 GAZİOSMANPAŞA 100.0 17.5 1.8 37.4 42.7 0.7 GÜNGÖREN 100.0 16.6 1.6 39.9 41.1 0.8 KADIKÖY 100.0 16.1 0.9 67.8 14.6 0.6 KAĞITHANE 100.0 16.3 1.6 39.9 41.5 0.7 100.0 14.3 1.5 49.3 34.3 0.7 KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE 100.0 16.4 1.8 48.7 32.5 0.7 MALTEPE 100.0 15.6 1.4 52.4 30.0 0.6 PENDİK 100.0 15.9 1,7 37.9 43.6 0.9 100.0 15.1 1.8 42.9 39.6 0.7 SARIYER 100.0 17.6 1.3 49.3 31.1 0.7 SİLİVRİ 100.0 15.5 1.9 51.1 31.0 0.5 SULTANBEYLİ 100.0 16.7 2.1 26.7 53.5 1.0 SULTANGAZİ 100.0 14.7 1.9 34.5 48.1 0.8 ŞİLE 100.0 12.7 1.8 42.5 42.2 0.8 ŞİŞLİ 100.0 17.2 1.3 59.7 21.1 0.6 TUZLA 100.0 15.1 1.6 44.3 38.3 0.7 ÜMRANİYE 100.0 14.6 1.6 39.8 43.2 0.7 ÜSKÜDAR 100.0 14.9 1.4 45.3 37.5 0.8 100.0 17.9 1.8 41.8 37.8 0.6 İSTANBUL 100.0 15.6 1.6 45.5 36.3 0.7

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 7 / 71

2.3. Change in Districts

Non-voter Invalid İmamoğlu Yıldırım Other ADALAR -2.0 -1.5 10.5 -3.8 -3.1 ARNAVUTKÖY 2.1 -2.1 3.5 -1.6 -1.9 ATAŞEHİR 0.0 -1.2 5.2 -3.0 -1.1 AVCILAR -0.3 -1.0 5.9 -3.8 -0.8 BAĞCILAR 0.1 -1.5 4.5 -1.4 -1.7 BAHÇELİEVLER -0.9 -1.3 5.1 -1.5 -1.4 BAKIRKÖY -1.9 -0.6 7.2 -3.5 -1.2 BAŞAKŞEHİR -0.7 -1.3 4.5 -1.0 -1.5 BAYRAMPAŞA -0.3 -0.8 5.7 -2.9 -1.6 BEŞİKTAŞ -4.4 -0.5 7.8 -1.9 -0.9 BEYKOZ 1.5 -1.4 4.6 -3.1 -1.6 BEYLİKDÜZÜ 0.8 -0.9 3.5 -2.6 -0.8 BEYOĞLU 0.3 -1.5 4.8 -2.0 -1.6 BÜYÜKÇEKMECE 1.4 -1.2 5.1 -4.5 -0.8 ÇATALCA 1.7 -1.9 6.7 -5.7 -0.8 ÇEKMEKÖY 0.5 -2.2 5.9 -1.0 -3.2 ESENLER 0.7 -1.4 4.3 -1.7 -1.8 ESENYURT 1.7 -1.6 3.5 -2.7 -0.9 EYÜPSULTAN -0.9 -1.1 5.6 -2.2 -1.4 FATİH -1.4 -1.2 5.5 -2.0 -1.0 GAZİOSMANPAŞA 0.3 -1.5 5.0 -1.9 -2.0 GÜNGÖREN -0.7 -1.3 5.4 -2.0 -1.4 KADIKÖY -0.1 -0.6 4.0 -2.3 -0.9 KAĞITHANE -1.3 -1.4 6.1 -1.6 -1.8 KARTAL -0.2 -1.2 5.6 -3.0 -1.1 KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE 0.1 -1.2 5.7 -3.3 -1.3 MALTEPE -0.2 -1.5 5.6 -2.7 -1.2 PENDİK -0.1 -1.3 4.4 -1.7 -1.4 SANCAKTEPE 0.8 -2.1 3.9 -1.5 -1.0 SARIYER 2.1 -1.1 3.8 -3.9 -0.9 SİLİVRİ 6.1 -2.4 4.7 -6.5 -2.0 SULTANBEYLİ 1.6 -2.2 2.6 -0.2 -1.8 SULTANGAZİ -0.2 -1.6 3.3 0.0 -1.5 ŞİLE 2.3 -1.6 7.0 -6.6 -1.0 ŞİŞLİ -1.8 -1.9 8.2 -1.6 -2.9 TUZLA 0.3 -1.3 4.9 -2.6 -1.2 ÜMRANİYE -1.2 -1.3 5.1 -1.2 -1.5 ÜSKÜDAR -0.4 -1.0 5.5 -2.6 -1.5 ZEYTİNBURNU 0.0 -1.3 5.4 -2.6 -1.5 İSTANBUL 0.1 -1.4 5.3 -2.6 -1.5

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 8 / 71

The districts where İmamoğlu's votes increased the most were the following ones: Adalar (10.5 points), Şişli (8.2 points), Beşiktaş (7.8 points), Bakırköy (7.2 points), Şile (7 points), Çatalca (6, 7 points), Kağıthane (6.1 points), Avcılar (5.9 points), Çekmeköy (5.9 points), Küçükçekmece (5.7 points). The fact that the top five districts with the highest increase in votes were the ones where the CHP is traditionally strong, could be as a result that the CHP voters who had not gone to the polls on 31 March because they had no hope of winning or they were resentful, went to the polls this time. On the other hand, besides the consolidation of the opposition bloc in these districts, we can see on the table that there are shifts from 2 to 3 points from the incumbent bloc.

On the other hand, the districts where Yıldırım lost the highest percentage of votes, are the following ones: Şile (6.6 points), Silivri (6.5 points), Çatalca (5.7 points), Büyükçekmece (4.5 points), Sarıyer (3.9 points), Adalar (3.8 points), Avcılar (3.8 points), Bakirköy (3.5 points), Küçükçekmece (3.3 points), Beykoz (3.1 points).

2.4. Socioeconomic Situation of the Districts and Voting Distribution

When we compare the vote rates of E. İmamoğlu and B. Yıldırım considering the analysis results of the income distribution in 2017 on the basis of neighborhoods and districts in İstanbul, which is calculated and announced within the scope of al ‘My Neighborhood İstanbul Project’ by İstanbul University Faculty of Economics3; some remarkable points emerge.

In the analysis we made considering the average income level on the basis of districts, the votes of İmamoğlu in the top 10 districts with the highest income level are between 71.1 percent and 49.3 percent and more than Yıldırım in all of them. On the other hand, there is a contentious situation in the last 10 districts where the average household income is the lowest. In the districts with the lowest income level, the vote of İmamoğlu varies between 37.4 percent and 49.7 percent, while the Yıldırım vote varies between 42.7 percent and 32.5 percent.

In the graph below, It is understood that the vote differences in the districts, which are in the middle of household income ranking, are in favor of E.Imamoğlu.

3 http://www.mahallemistanbul.com/MahallemSEGE_/

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 9 / 71

Istanbul districts' household incomes and 23 June vote preferences 80,0 12000

70,0 10000 60,0 8000 50,0

40,0 6000

30,0 4000 20,0 2000 10,0

0,0 0

ŞİLE

ŞİŞLİ

FATİH

TUZLA

SİLİVRİ

KARTAL

PENDİK

ADALAR

BEYKOZ

AVCILAR

SARIYER

ÇATALCA

KADIKÖY

ESENLER

MALTEPE

BEYOĞLU

ATAŞEHİR

BEŞİKTAŞ

ÜSKÜDAR

BAĞCILAR

BAKIRKÖY

ÜMRANİYE

ESENYURT

ÇEKMEKÖY

KAĞITHANE

GÜNGÖREN

SULTANGAZİ

BEYLİKDÜZÜ

BAŞAKŞEHİR

EYÜPSULTAN

SANCAKTEPE

ARNAVUTKÖY

SULTANBEYLİ

BAYRAMPAŞA

ZEYTİNBURNU

BAHÇELİEVLER

BÜYÜKÇEKMECE

KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE GAZİOSMANPAŞA

Monthly Household income İmamoğlu Yıldırım

Istanbul districts monthly household average income, 23 June E. İmamoğlu, 24 June'18 opposition block vote rates 80,0 12000

70,0 10000 60,0 8000 50,0

40,0 6000

30,0 4000 20,0 2000 10,0

0,0 0

ŞİLE

ŞİŞLİ

FATİH

TUZLA

SİLİVRİ

PENDİK KARTAL

ADALAR

BEYKOZ

AVCILAR

SARIYER

ÇATALCA

KADIKÖY

ESENLER

MALTEPE

BEYOĞLU

ATAŞEHİR

BEŞİKTAŞ

ÜSKÜDAR

BAĞCILAR

BAKIRKÖY

ÜMRANİYE

ESENYURT

ÇEKMEKÖY

KAĞITHANE

GÜNGÖREN

SULTANGAZİ

BEYLİKDÜZÜ

BAŞAKŞEHİR

EYÜPSULTAN

SANCAKTEPE

ARNAVUTKÖY

SULTANBEYLİ

BAYRAMPAŞA

ZEYTİNBURNU

BAHÇELİEVLER

BÜYÜKÇEKMECE

KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE GAZİOSMANPAŞA

Monthly household income 23 June / İmamoğlu 24 June'18 / CHP+İyiParti+HDP

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 10 / 71

Istanbul districts monthly household average income, 23 June B. Yıldırım, 24 June'18 power block vote rates

70,0 12000

60,0 10000

50,0 8000 40,0 6000 30,0 4000 20,0

10,0 2000

0,0 0

ŞİLE

ŞİŞLİ

FATİH

TUZLA

SİLİVRİ

KARTAL

PENDİK

ADALAR

BEYKOZ

AVCILAR

SARIYER

ÇATALCA

KADIKÖY

ESENLER

MALTEPE

BEYOĞLU

ATAŞEHİR

BEŞİKTAŞ

ÜSKÜDAR

BAĞCILAR

BAKIRKÖY

ÜMRANİYE

ESENYURT

ÇEKMEKÖY

KAĞITHANE

GÜNGÖREN

SULTANGAZİ

BEYLİKDÜZÜ

BAŞAKŞEHİR

EYÜPSULTAN

SANCAKTEPE

ARNAVUTKÖY

SULTANBEYLİ

BAYRAMPAŞA

ZEYTİNBURNU

BAHÇELİEVLER

BÜYÜKÇEKMECE

KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE GAZİOSMANPAŞA

Monthly household income 23 June / Yıldırım 24 June'18 / AkParti+MHP

On the other hand, an interesting point draws attention when the results of the 24 June 2018 General Elections and the power bloc (AkParti + MHP) - opposition bloc (CHP + Iyi Parti + HDP) vote rates are analyzed together and visualized as shown in the two graphs above.

✓ Although there is no special difference between İmamoğlu votes and opposing block votes in districts with the lowest income and highest income, İmamoğlu votes increased slightly compared to the opposing block votes in the middle income districts. ✓ On the other hand, Yıldırım’s vote declined in all of them compared the 24 June votes of the incumbent bloc, but decreased slightly more in the mid-income districts. ✓ It can be said that this observed relationship implies a potential for change in terms of economic class positions in the party bases as well as in relation to the current economic turmoil. In relatively middle-income districts, the incumbent bloc loses votes and the reason may be due to the class position changes as well as due to the current politics. For this reason, it may not be enough to analyze the dynamics that produce the results of June 23 through campaigns and discourses. However, we should note that this finding requires analysis and confirmation by a special research.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 11 / 71

Monthly average household İmamoğlu Yıldırım income 2017 (TL) BEŞİKTAŞ 10560 71,1 13,4 KADIKÖY 9025 67,8 14,6 BAKIRKÖY 8845 66,3 16,9 ŞİŞLİ 7822 59,7 21,1 SARIYER 7308 49,3 31,1 ÜSKÜDAR 6987 45,3 37,5 ADALAR 6652 58,5 23,6 ATAŞEHİR 6577 50,4 33,1 MALTEPE 5772 52,4 30,0 FATİH 5281 39,3 39,2 BEYOĞLU 4773 40,6 37,6 BAHÇELİEVLER 4674 42,4 38,7 EYÜPSULTAN 4670 45,4 38,1 BAŞAKŞEHİR 4513 39,6 42,7 BEYLİKDÜZÜ 4327 51,1 31,2 KAĞITHANE 4188 39,9 41,5 KARTAL 4120 49,3 34,3 BEYKOZ 3693 41,3 40,9 BÜYÜKÇEKMECE 3671 48,1 33,3 AVCILAR 3662 50,6 30,5 ZEYTİNBURNU 3644 41,8 37,8 ÜMRANİYE 3637 39,8 43,2 KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE 3567 48,7 32,5 ÇEKMEKÖY 3503 42,9 41,1 BAYRAMPAŞA 3480 42,5 40,7 TUZLA 3407 44,3 38,3 GÜNGÖREN 3388 39,9 41,1 BAĞCILAR 3197 34,6 46,0 PENDİK 3055 37,9 43,6 ESENYURT 3024 44,9 33,0 GAZİOSMANPAŞA 3019 37,4 42,7 ESENLER 2847 31,1 50,1 SANCAKTEPE 2633 42,9 39,6 ŞİLE 2482 42,5 42,2 SİLİVRİ 2372 51,1 31,0 SULTANGAZİ 2187 34,5 48,1 SULTANBEYLİ 2172 26,7 53,5 ÇATALCA 2128 50,6 33,9 ARNAVUTKÖY 2030 31,1 48,4

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 12 / 71

2.5. Clusterings in the Political Geography of Districts

When clustering analysis is conducted according to the distribution patterns of votes in the elections of Istanbul districts, five different political behavior patterns emerge. The analysis was based on the distribution of votes of the Metropolitan Municipality in 2014 Local Elections, 2015 Presidential Election, 2017 Presidential System Referendum, 2018 Presidential Election, 31 March 2019 Local Election Metropolitan Municipality. The reason why these elections and referendums were taken as the basis for the analysis was the opinion that the opposition and the incumbent blocs were clearly formed in the before mentioned elections and the referendum, and the assumption that it would shed a better light on the current situation.

Istanbul Districts Clustering Analysis

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 13 / 71

Monthly Number of average Clusters İmamoğlu Yıldırım Characteristics Voters house- hold in- come ADALAR 6652 58,5 23,6

BAKIRKÖY 8845 66,3 16,9 ✓ CHP dominates Cluster BEŞİKTAŞ 10560 71,1 13,4 ✓ Economically strong 1 888.903 KADIKÖY (%8,4) 9025 67,8 14,6 ✓ Setleddness strong ŞİŞLİ 7822 59,7 21,1 ATAŞEHİR 6577 50,4 33,1 AVCILAR 3662 50,6 30,5 ✓ Opposition and incum- BEYLİKDÜZÜ 2.137.572 4327 51,1 31,2 bent blocs are in com- BÜYÜKÇEKMECE (%20,2) 3671 48,1 33,3 plete competition Cluster ✓ Centers which gets ÇATALCA 2128 50,6 33,9 2 stronger economically KARTAL 4120 49,3 34,3 ✓ Places where zoning MALTEPE 5772 52,4 30,0 movement and new mi- SARIYER 7308 49,3 31,1 gration are intensive SİLİVRİ 2372 51,1 31,0 ✓ The Ak Parti and The SULTANBEYLİ Cluster 3 213.941 2172 26,7 53,5 HDP competition is de- (%2) cisive ARNAVUTKÖY 2030 31,1 48,4 ✓ Economically weak ✓ The Ak Parti dominates

BAĞCILAR 3197 34,6 46,0 ✓ Districts emerged and Cluster 4 1.336.252 got stronger in the last ESENLER (%12,7) 2847 31,1 50,1 ten years SULTANGAZİ 2187 34,5 48,1 BAHÇELİEVLER 4674 42,4 38,7 BAŞAKŞEHİR 4513 39,6 42,7

BAYRAMPAŞA 3480 42,5 40,7 BEYKOZ 3693 41,3 40,9 BEYOĞLU 4773 40,6 37,6

ÇEKMEKÖY 3503 42,9 41,1 ESENYURT 3024 44,9 33,0 ✓ Even if the incumbent EYÜPSULTAN 4670 45,4 38,1 bloc is strong, opposi- tion bloc is existent FATİH 5281 39,3 39,2 ✓ Old and traditional Is- GAZİOSMANPAŞA 3019 37,4 42,7 tanbul districts where Cluster 5 GÜNGÖREN 3388 39,9 41,1 setleddness is relatively strong KAĞITHANE 5.983.018 4188 39,9 41,5 (%56,7) ✓ Places where urban KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE 3567 48,7 32,5 transformation is inten- PENDİK 3055 37,9 43,6 sive SANCAKTEPE 2633 42,9 39,6 ŞİLE 2482 42,5 42,2 TUZLA 3407 44,3 38,3 ÜMRANİYE 3637 39,8 43,2 ÜSKÜDAR 6987 45,3 37,5 ZEYTİNBURNU 3644 41,8 37,8

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 14 / 71

We should state that the economic and sociological notes that we put forward in order to explain the clusters formed are statements of subjective effort rather than the data. However, our political analysis is based on political data based on clusters.

In fact, as seen in the table below, while Imamoglu's vote was 65 percent on June 23 at the total of districts in 1.cluster, 68 percent of the electorate in these districts had voted in the referendum of 2017 Presidential system as ‘no’, while 58 percent had voted in the 2017 Presidential election for Muharrem İnce. In the 2nd cluster districts, İmamoğlu's vote was 50 percent on June 23, while 52 percent voted “no” in the 2017 Presidential system referendum and 40 percent casted a vote for Muharrem İnce and 38 percent for Erdoğan in the 2018 Presidential election.

In Sultanbeyli, which constituted the 3rd cluster alone, the vote of Imamoglu is at 27 percent, while Yıldırım's vote is at 53 percent, whereas Demirtaş had 13 percent of the votes in the 2018 Presidency elections and the HDP had 16 percent of the votes in the 24 June 2018 General Elections.

In the districts in the 4th cluster, İmamoğlu's vote was 33 percent on 23 June and Yıldırım's vote was 48 percent, whereas in the 2017 Presidential system referendum 56 percent said “yes”, 31 percent said “no” and 55 percent casted a vote for Erdoğan in the 2018 Presidential election.

23 June’19 2017 Referandum 2018 Presidential election Clusters İmamoğlu Yıldırım Yes No İnce Akşener Erdoğan Demirtaş 1 65 18 20 68 58 4 21 4 2 50 32 36 52 40 5 38 4 3 27 53 62 26 10 2 60 13 4 33 48 56 31 17 3 55 10 5 42 40 45 42 29 4 46 6

In the districts in the 5th cluster, we observe a full political competition. On June 23, Imamoğlu received 42 percent of the votes, while Yıldırım received 40 percent of the votes. In the referendum 45 percent said ‘yes’, and 42 percent said ‘no’.

The table analyzing the results of June 23 in Istanbul districts, which constitute these five different clusters, again based on 5 clusters is given below. In the 3rd and 4th clusters dominated by the Ak Parti, it is remarkable that both participation and invalid votes are relatively high. 23 June 2019 İBB Presidential Election Districts Voter Non-voter Invalid vote B.Yıldırım E.İmamoğlu Other 1 100.0 15.8 1.1 16.5 66.1 0.5 2 100.0 15.6 1.5 31.9 50.4 0.6 3 100.0 16.7 2.1 53.5 26.7 1.0 4 100.0 16.2 1.9 47.8 33.3 0.8 5 100.0 16.3 1.7 39.1 42.2 0.8 İstanbul 100.0 15.6 1.7 37.2 44.9 0.7

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 15 / 71

2.6. Vote Shifts

2.6.1. Comparison of the results of 23 June with 31 March elections When we compare the results of the June 23 elections with the results of the March 31 based on vote shifts, there is a significant change in the vote of the opposition bloc candidate İmamoğlu.

Invalid Incum- Opposi- Total Vote distributions Non-voter HDP Other vote bent bloc tion bloc Voter 31 March Local Assem- 16.2 3.0 38,6 33.9 3.2 5.0 100.0 bly4 31 March İBB Mayorship 16.1 3.0 39,4 39.5 2.1 100.0

23 June İBB Mayorship 15.6 1.7 37,2 44.9 0.7 100.0

Differences compared to 23 Invalid Incum- Opposi- Non-voter HDP Other Total June results vote bent bloc tion bloc 31 March Local Assembly -0.6 -1.3 -1.3 10.9 -3.2 -4.4 0 31 March İBB Mayorship -0.5 -1.3 -2.1 5.4 0.0 -1.5 0

When we compare with 31 March IBB Presidential votes, it is observed that İmamoğlu’s vote has increased by 5.4 points and Yıldırım’s vote has decreased by only 2.1 points. It can be claimed that the most important source of the increase in the vote of Imamoğlu came from all segments who voted for the incumbent bloc and other candidates on March 31st. The increase in the participation in the elections together with the decrease in invalid votes is one of the sources of the increase in İmamoğlu's vote.

On the other hand, when we compare the votes of June 23 with the votes of 31 March Municipal Assembly votes, İmamoğlu’s votes have increased by 10.9 points and Yıldırım’s votes have decreased by 1.3 points. It is observed that the first important source of the increase in İmamoğlu’s vote is the 3.2-point HDP vote and similarly the 4.4-point vote of groups which vote for other political parties.

Based on these numerical analyzes It is possible to claim the following: There is a 1-2-point shift to İmamoğlu from the votes of the incumbent bloc on 31 March. However, it is not yet possible to tell based on the results of the polls from our analysis up to now, how this shift divides between Ak Parti and MHP voters.

4 The difference between the numbers in the poll analysis we published after the 31 March Local Elections and the two thousandth level difference between these numbers is due to the differences between the provisional results (99 percent opened) served by the Anatolian Agent to the media and the final results of the polls.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 16 / 71

2.6.2. Comparison of 23 June results with 24 June 2018 general election results If we continue from the previous sentence, it may be useful to compare the results of June 23 with the results of the 24 June 2018 General Elections in order to answer the question of how much of the 1-2 point voters shifted to İmamoğlu is strategic vote or how much of them is really as a result of inter-block transition.

Incumbent Opposition Vote distributions Non-voter Invalid vote HDP Other Total Voter bloc bloc 2018 General Election 11.6 1.4 44.3 30,0 11,0 1,7 100,0 2018 Presidential Elec- 11.9 1.4 43.4 36,1 6,3 1,0 100,0 tion 23 June İBB Mayorship 15.6 1.7 37.2 44,9 0,7 100,0

Differences compared to 23 Invalid Incumbent Opposition Non-voter HDP Other Total June results vote bloc bloc 2018 General Election 4.0 0.3 -7.1 14.9 -11.0 -1.1 0 2018 Presidential Elec- 3.7 0.3 -6.1 8.7 -6.3 -0.3 0 tion

As you can see in the table above, when we compare the results of the General Elections with 23 June, the vote of İmamoğlu's opposition bloc increased by 14.9 points. The main source of this increase is the vote of the HDP at the rate of 11 percent and of other parties at the rate of 1.1 points. On the other hand, it is possible to say that 4-point portion of the 7.1-point decrease of Yıldırım’s votes stems from those who did not participate in the election.

When we make the same comparison with the distribution of Presidential votes on 24 June 2018, it is seen that İmamoğlu’s vote has increased by 8.7 points, of which 6.3 points were caused by Demirtaş or HDP votes. It is assumed that 3.7 points of the 6.1 point decrease seen in the Yıldırım’s vote compared to Erdoğan is composed of the power block voters who did not participate in the election, but the vote which is at the level of 2 points is shifted towards İmamoğlu.

Based on these two comparisons, it is possible to claim that while the Istanbul election was renewed on 23 June, the voters of the incumbent block shifted towards the opposition bloc by 1-2 points. On the other hand, the fact that the transition between the blocks is only at the level of1-2 points even in a period of deep economic and political turmoil indicates how strong the polarization is.

Of course, since these calculations and findings are based on the total distribution of votes in Istanbul, it may include some in globo and shortcut comments. Therefore, the analysis needs to be reduced to the level of neighborhood and even to the level of ballot box.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 17 / 71

2.7. Vote Shifts Analysis

Çilek Ağacı - http://cilekagaci.com/

2.7.1. Summary In this study, we present a numerical analysis of the results of 24 June 2018 General Elections and 31 March and 23 June 2019 Local Elections. In our study, we used the Istanbul election results at the neighborhood level. The focus of the report is on (i) vote transitions in Istanbul and (ii) election participation of party bases. We have strengthened the reliability of the findings in the study with comparisons at the neighborhood.

Main findings: • Imamoğlu received the support of the majority of the electorate who voted for the CHP, the İyi Parti and the HDP in the March elections. This support has gained strength in the June elections. • A significant number of voters who voted for Binali Yıldırım in the March Elections voted for Ekrem İmamoğlu in the repeated June elections. • In March 2019 elections, less than half of MHP voters voted for Binali Yıldırım. In June, this support was further weakened and only a third of MHP electorate voted for Binali Yıldırım. The majority of MHP electorate voted in favor of Ekrem İmamoğlu in the second election. • A significant portion of the electorate who voted for the Ak Parti (3,5% according to our vote transition model) voted for İmamoğlu in June. • According to the March elections, most of the valid votes increased in June were in favor of Imamoglu and the majority of this electorate is consisted of the electorate who voted for the HDP and İyi Parti in the 2018 General Elections. • The Saadet Parti electorate, who supported their candidates in the March elections, voted in favor of İmamoğlu in the June elections.

We applied the same methods that Çilek Ağacı used in the previous elections for the vote transition analysis. You can find the data and code that we use in our study on our GitHub website.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 18 / 71

2.7.2. Vote Exchanges Between Parties and Candidates

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 19 / 71

In both local elections, the majority of the votes received by Binali Yıldırım came from the voters who voted in favor of the Ak Parti in the 2018 General Elections. In the March 2019 Local Elections, Yıldırım received the support of only less than half of the voters who voted for the MHP in 2018. This support further weakened in the June elections in Istanbul. In 2018, the majority of voters who voted for the CHP, HDP and İyi Parti supported Ekrem İmamoğlu in the March 2019 Local Elections. This support strengthened in June for these three parties and reached almost all of the electorate. While the Saadet Parti voters supported their own candidates in the March 2019 Local Elections, almost half of the same voters voted in favor of İmamoğlu in the June elections. Imamoğlu managed to convince 3.5 percent of Ak Parti voters in the second election.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 20 / 71

2.7.3. Vote Change of Ekrem İmamoğlu at the Neighborhood Level

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 21 / 71

Even if we assume that all voters who did not vote in the Istanbul March elections but went to the polls in June voted for Ekrem İmamoğlu and that all the votes lost by candidates other than Binali Yıldırım were also casted for Ekrem İmamoğlu, it is not possible to explain the increase in İmamoğlu's votes without passing of the votes from Yıldırım. Because almost all the dots representing the neighborhoods are located above the dashed x = y line. This is an observation that supports the findings in our vote transitions analysis.

2.7.4. Political Party Components of Ekrem İmamoğlu's Vote Increase

In light of the forecasts of the vote transitions between the 2018 General Elections and the March 2019 and June 2019 Local Elections, we calculated from which party voters the increased support in favor of Ekrem İmamoğlu arises from March to June.5 According to the party preferences in the 2018 General Elections, the biggest share of İmamoğlu's renewed election success belongs to the İyi Parti and HDP voters who are better mobilized in the June elections and whose rates of going to the ballot box have increased. In the renewed election, Imamoğlu received form the Ak Part voters a considerable support. Finally, the 10 point difference emerged due to the additional support from the SP, MHP, and CHP voters.

5 In order to make this account, we assumed that the voters who casted a vote for Ekrem İmamoğlu in the March elections used the same vote in the June elections. The accuracy of our estimates will vary depending on the accuracy of this assumption.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 22 / 71

In the analysis, which we perform almost in every election, we observed such a clear voter shift between the polarized blocs. We will observe in the forthcoming days, if these voter shifts, which emerged in a relatively short time, will reveal a positive change in Turkish politics.

2.8. Analysis on the Basis of Istanbul Neighborhoods

Immediately after the election of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality on 23 June, the public started to share maps showing which alliances led in the districts. The big change between the two maps gave the clue that the difference of votes between the two elections could have been due to the shifting of voters' preference in different directions throughout the province rather than in a few districts.

31 March 2019 23 June 2019

After our district-based analyzes, we wanted to look at the changes between the two elections at the neighborhood level. Since the votes were not distributed homogeneously in the districts, we prepared the distribution of votes, participation and other maps in the smallest administrative unit possible on the basis of neighborhoods. At the same time, we created the cartograms that we frequently used in our previous election analyzes based on the number of neighborhood voters.

When we look at the same distribution on the basis of neighborhoods, we see that İmamoğlu and Yıldırım, the candidates of the alliances, lead in some neighborhoods in the districts, where they lost the election.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 23 / 71

23 June 2019 İBB election Candidate, who received the most votes in neighborhoods

2.8.1. Vote Distribution of Municipal Assembly We examined the distribution of the votes of the Municipal Assembly in the neighborhoods based on the data of 31 March 2019 Local Elections.

In the metropolitan cities, the General Assembly is calculated with the d’Hondt system, after the 31 March elections, according to unofficial calculations, about 180 of the 312 members who will take part in the assembly with the president will be members of the Cumhur Alliance and around 130 of the Millet Alliance. Therefore, even if the Millet Alliance leads in the votes of the Metropolitan Municipality, this situation will not be reflected in the number of members of the Provincial Assembly.

In the Municipal Assembly vote distributions, the Ak Parti received 46 percent of the votes, while the CHP received 39 percent. The other parties of the alliances, the MHP received 2 percent, whereas the İyi Parti 3 percent of the votes. Before going into detail in terms of the distribution of these votes and in which neighborhoods the parties are strong, we share the map showing the first-ranked party in each neighborhood.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 24 / 71

Parties with the highest votes in the neighborhoods according to the Municipal Assembly votes of the 31 March 2019 Local Election

When we look side by side to see the general picture of the parties' own distribution of votes, we see that the CHP is strong in the central districts of Istanbul as well as the two periphery districts like Silivri and Çatalca, on the coastal line of Bakırköy and the following, on the coastal parts of the Anatolian side and Sarıyer.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 25 / 71

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Municipal Assembly votes - CHP

The other party of the Millet Alliance, the İyi Parti, made its presence felt in the assembly votes in districts on the Anatolian side, such as Şile and Beykoz, as well as in districts such as Kağıthane and Arnavutköy, where the CHP couldn’t make its presence felt.

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Municipal Assembly votes – İyi Parti

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 26 / 71

While the Ak Parti did not nominate candidates in Silivri, Beşiktaş and Maltepe, we see the votes of the MHP, the other component of the Cumhur Alliance, in these regions. While the Ak Parti received a high percentage of votes throughout Istanbul, it is noteworthy that the most powerful regions are the new districts of the city.

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Municipal Assembly votes – Ak Parti

The MHP received its highest rate of votes in Maltepe’s neighboorhods above the E-5.

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Municipal Assembly Votes – MHP

Finally, when we look at the HDP assembly vote distribution, we see that some neighborhoods of Sultanbeyli and Arnavutköy, which form a separate cluster due to their unique structure in

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 27 / 71

our district cluster analysis, make up the regions where the HDP receives the highest percentage of votes.

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Municipal Assembly votes – HDP

2.8.2. Participation and Invalid Votes

In the process after the March 31 election, invalid votes were discussed. In the informal results which we got immediately after the June 23 elections do not include the information of ‘casted votes’, it has only the information ‘valid votes.’ For this reason, we cannot compare invalid votes directly on the basis of the neighborhood.

We calculated turnotu by proportioning the valid votes to the number of voters, so we found out a lower rate than actual participation.

The rate of invalid votes across Istanbul seems to have decreased by 1.5 points compared to the previous election. The presence of only one ballot paper may explain the low rate of invalid votes in the 23 June elections. While the invalid votes were 3.6 percent on 31 March, this rate was 2 percent on 23 June.

Although the turnout rate has not increased significantly (from 83.8 percent to 84.4 percent), the fact that the total number of votes increased considerably is due to the change in the invalid votes.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 28 / 71

23 June 2019 Local Elections – Participation Rates

When we look on the basis of neighborhoods, we see that the neighborhoods with low turnout rates are either in the districts or in the city center, in Fatih. Since the turnout rates are reflected in this map as a percentage, that few people go/not go to the polls in neighborhoods where there is a small number of voters (for example, Fatih - Sarıdemir Neighborhood 10 registered voters) may cause to appear as if there is big changes in the percentage of neighborhood turnout. 31 March- 23 June 2019 Local Elections – Turnout Difference

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 29 / 71

As we mentioned earlier, we calculated the percentage of turnout of the 23 June voter turnout from the proportioning of the valid votes to the number of voters, we made the same account for the 31 March elections and looked at the difference between the two.

According to the previous election, the neighborhoods where turnout increased the most were the coastal districts of Beşiktaş, Kadıköy and Bakırköy, while turnout in the districts in the periphery decreased compared to 31 March.

2.8.3. İBB Vote Distributions

Ekrem İmamoğlu

At the beginning of the chapter, we shared the neighborhood map showing the first ranked candidate in each neighborhood. We will give a detailed analysis of both candidates in this section.

In the map prepared according to the rates of votes which Ekrem İmamoğlu received in the March 31 elections, we see that the regions where he has been the most successful are Kadıköy, Beşiktaş and Bakırköy, which exist since the oldest macroforms, in other words since the oldest settlement areas of Istanbul.

From the peripheries of the Anatolian side and from the historical peninsula to the north, as we g oto the old industrial zones and the newly developing districts, his rates of vote are relatively low.

The reason why we put both maps up and down is to emphasize the difference between the two maps, which are formed with the same refractions and the same color scale. While Imamoğlu had high vote rates in the same regions in both elections, it was the first finding that the number of neighborhoods, which he received more than 50 percent of votes on 23 June, increased considerably. In other words, while the general table does not change in the distribution of votes, the rate of votes, which he received, increases on 23 June.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 30 / 71

31 March 2019 Local Elections – Distribution of votes of Ekrem İmamoğlu

23 June 2019 Local Elections – Distribution of votes of Ekrem İmamoğlu

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 31 / 71

Cartogram We prepared two separate cartograms based on all the voters of Istanbul and Imamoğlu's own voters. In this method, which reshapes the boundaries of the neighborhood according to the number of voters, the center becomes visible by getting rid of the administrative borders of the small but dense neighborhoods, whereas the large-area but low-populated neighborhoods occupy much less space.

The small differences between these two maps are due to the fact that the neighborhoods such as Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, Bakırköy, where İmamoğlu voters are more intense, grow and the area occupied by the neighborhoods where İmamoğlu receives less votes shrinks.

You will see a similar example of cartograms for Binali Yıldırım and the reason that the cartograms are not very different from each other is because both candidates do not get their votes from a certain region and they are not stuck in certain districts and neighborhoods. Therefore, their votes are distributed in the same proportions as all Istanbul voters.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 32 / 71

23 June 2019 – Distribution of votes Of Ekrem İmamoğlu Cartogram formed according to total number of voters

23 June 2019 – Distribution of votes of Ekrem İmamoğlu Cartogram formed according to the vote number of İmamoğlu

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 33 / 71

Binali Yıldırım When we draw the same maps for Binali Yıldırım, the candidate of the Cumhur Alliance, we can say that the total loss of votes was observed in the comparative maps between the two elections. Yıldırım receives in the neighborhoods of the districts of Fatih, Eyüpsultan, Beyoğlu and Kağıthane at higher rates votes, while receives the other majority of his votes from the neighborhoods in the new development areas of Istanbul.

31 March 2019 Local Elections –Distribution of votes of Binali Yıldırım

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 34 / 71

23 June 2019 Local Election – Distribution of votes of Binali Yıldırım

Cartogram When we construct the cartograms based on the number of voters of Yıldırım, , unlike the cartography of the İmamoğlu voters, we see that the center districts such as Kadıköy, Beşiktaş are smaller than total voter carthogram, and that the regions where Yıldırım receives has high rate of votes such as Arnavutköy, Bağcılar, Çekmeköy, Sultangazi is bigger.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 35 / 71

23 June 2019 – Distribution of votes for Binali Yıldırım Cartogram formed according to the total number of voters

Cartogram formed according to the vote number of Yıldırım

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 36 / 71

Finally, if we look at the change in their votes of both candidates from March 31 to June 23, we see two very different tables.

While Yıldırım seems to have lost votes in almost every neighborhood, İmamoğlu has increased his votes in almost every neighborhood. Imamoğlu's vote rates in central districts, which are already high, rose slightly compared to the previous election, while in the districts in the periphery, the vote rate increased around 20 percent.

31 March - 23 June 2019 Local Elections – Difference of Ekrem İmamoğlu’s votes

Yıldırım maintained his vote rate in districts, which we can describe as the second rig after the city center such as Eyüpsultan, Arnavutkoy, Çekmeköy, Sultanbeyli, Ümraniye, while he experienced the vote loss in the outermost districts and central neighborhoods at a higher rate.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 37 / 71

31 March - 23 June 2019 Local Elections – Difference of Binali Yıldırım’s votes

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 38 / 71

3. 23 JUNE VOTER PROFILES

We tried to present a voter profile based on the data that corresponds to the poll results of the Istanbul-specific Barometer survey we conducted one week before the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality elections on 23 June. During and after the election process, it was evaluated on the basis of estimation, from which clusters Imamoglu and Yıldırım received votes, or which candidate increased its vote in which cluster. However, by looking at the data of the 3 different surveys we conducted prior to 23 June, we tried to examine how the candidates' vote in different clusters have changed and whether the voter profiles have changed in time. These surveys were conducted on January 19-20, when the candidates were certain yet, on 23-24 March, one week before the 31st March elections, and on 15-16 June one week before the June 23rd election.

However, we will conduct this analysis of voter profiles based on general political preferences for the first time. Based on the question ‘Who would you vote for if there were a GENERAL Election today?’ we tried to reveal the relationship between the preferences for the IBB (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality) candidate and party preferences.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 39 / 71

3.1. Change in Preferences in Istanbul Based on Political Preferences

IBB Candidate Preference According to the Political Preference

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 95 2 3 March 93 2 5

Ak Parti June 90 3 7

January 2 95 1 2 March 1 94 0 5 CHP June 1 94 0 5

January 75 11 4 10 March 76 11 12 MHP June 57 28 15

January 6 53 26 15 March 2 89 2 7 HDP June 2 91 7

January 7 77 3 13 March 4 87 1 7

İyi Parti İyi June 5 90 0 5

January 24 18 5 54

March 24 29 3 44 voter Swing June 18 40 1 41

January 18 10 4 69

March 17 17 4 62 Non- voter June 13 30 5 52 %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

The most obvious change is among MHP Partisans Regarding this course, which is based on three different studies, the most important thing to draw attention is related to MHP voters. Because, when we compare the fieldwork conducted before 31 March with the study conducted before 23 June, we see that the rate of the votes going from the MHP partisans to İmamoğlu has increased from 11 percent to 28 percent.

Even among Ak Parti voters, we see that the number of those who indicate that they are undecided as the election approaches, increases. In all other voter groups, the rate of Ekrem İmamoğlu increases visibly. On the other hand, Binali Yıldırım's vote remains at the same level in 3 different measurements. Even among those who say that they are undecided or non-voter, there is a remarkable increase in the votes of the candidate of the Millet Alliance.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 40 / 71

The difference of HDP voters between January and March reveals a very striking picture. Before the decision to support Imamoğlu, only 53 percent supported him, while this rate has increased to 90 percent in the survey.

When we examine the candidate preferences according to the size of the party voters, it can be seen below that the playmaker feature of the HDP electorate becomes evident.

IBB Candidate Profile According to Political Preference

Ak Parti 36 1 3

CHP 31 2

MHP 1 1

HDP 9 1

İyi Parti 1

Other parties

Swing voter 2 4 4

Non-voter 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

The size of those who stated that they were undecided in their general political preference and that they would cast a vote for İmamoğlu in the election of IBB was twice the size of those who said that they would cast a vote for Yıldırım.

The most critical actor was the HDP When we do the same analysis on the basis alliances, a picture like the one below appears. While the cluster comprised of Millet alliance and the HDP cast a vote for their candidate completely, we found out that those who did not vote for Yıldırım in the Cumhur Alliance were quite visible. IBB Candidate Profile According to Basis Alliances

Cumhur Alliance 38 2 3

Millet Alliance + HDP 1 41

Other parties

Swing voter 2 4 4

Non voter 1

0 10 20 30 40 50

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other Swing / Non voter / No answer

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 41 / 71

When we examine how the political preference changes according to the preference of the candidate, we can see that Yıldırım has become stuck with his party's voters over time.

Political preference according to the IBB candidate preference İstanbul 40 33 2 10 11 2

January 67 14 1 12 3 March 76 1 10 10 2

June 90 1 3 1 5 1 B. B. Yıldırım

January 2 58 2 13 11 11 2

E. March 1 54 1 15 14 11 2

June 3 64 1 18 2 9 2 İmamoğlu

January 0 5 49 3 24 6 March 5 2 6 22 11 Other June 8 0 13 17

January 2 4 71 9

March 11 8 3 48 21 voter Swing Haz. 25 14 3 1 40 12 % 0 % 50 % 100 Ak Parti CHP MHP HDP İyi Parti Other parties Swing voter Non-voter

Increase of the Ak Parti partisans who voted for Yıldırım and Increase of Ak Parti partisans among Swing voters We can see a similar situation like the one of Yıldırım electorate among swing voters. Among those who say they are undecided about the election of the IBB candidacy, the Ak Parti vote rate is seen to have increased up to a quarter over time. While the indecision of all other voter groups has diminished, a picture appears as if the hesitation of the Ak Parti regarding IBB election has continued.

Through this graph, we can see once again that a significant portion of MHP voters t has given up supporting Binali Yıldırım, especially at the last stage.

3.2. Change in Preferences in Istanbul According to Demographic Clusters

We tried to analyze how this course moves in different demographic clusters as well as the preferences of Istanbul Mayor Candidate according to general political preferences. We examined how the candidate preference in different clusters changed, and tried to understand whether the profiles of candidate voter groups have changed in the past 6 months.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 42 / 71

When we look at the different groups according to many different cleavages, it is necessary to point out first the prevailing situation in general: Binali Yıldırım’s vote is not differentiated in the three different studies in a significant part of the social clusters; however, we find that İmamoğlu's vote has increased. In other words, Imamoglu did not only increase his votes in certain clusters, but he put forth a widespread increase in general.

3.2.1. Gender First of all, we can see the situation mentioned above in terms of gender. Yıldırım’s vote among both women and men remained at the level of January. Imamoglu has increased his vote among both men and women. IBB Candidate Preference according to the Gender

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 41 33 3 22 March 43 41 1 15

Females June 41 49 1 9

January 42 35 5 18

March 37 46 2 14 Males June 40 49 1 9

%0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other Swing/Nonvoter/No ans

When we do this analysis in reverse, in other words, when we examine the gender distribution of the voters supporting the candidates, we can say that there is no significant difference in the voter profile of the two candidates.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 43 / 71

Gender according to the IBB candidate preference İstanbul 50 50

January 49 51

March 54 46 Binali Yıldırım June 53 47

January 48 52 March 48 52

Ekrem June 51 49 İmamoğlu

January 38 62 March 39 61 Other June 38 63

January 60 40

March 53 47 voter Swing June 51 49

Female Male

3.2.2. Age Groups

Imamoğlu effect in young people When we examine the change in candidate preferences in three different age groups, we can see that İmamoğlu increased his vote in all three groups. Especially among young people, his vote has increased from 37 percent to 58 percent. On the other hand, Binali Yiıldırım is equally preferred in all clusters at the beginning of the year, while he can maintain the same rate only among those who are 49 years and older. On the other hand, his vote among young people in the 18-32 age group decreased from 36 percent to 30 percent.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 44 / 71

IBB candidate preference according to age groups

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 36 37 7 21

March 34 48 2 16 ages

18 - 32 18 - June 36 37 7 21

January 42 33 4 21

March 43 41 2 15 ages

33 - 48 33 - June 42 33 4 21

January 47 33 2 17 March 43 41 3 13

June 47 33 2 17 49+ 49+ ages %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other Swing voter

The age distribution differs among candidate voter groups. The voters of Imamoğlu seem a bit younger than Istanbul’s average. Binali Yıldırım receives more votes in the cluster of old people.

Age distribution according to the IBB candidate preference

İstanbul 32 37 31

January 31 37 32

B. March 27 39 35

Yıldırım June 25 42 34

January 37 35 28 u

E. March 35 34 30

İmamoğl June 39 33 28

January 52 32 16 March 28 30 42 Other June 25 38 38

January 34 41 26

March 35 37 28 voter Swing June 32 38 30 %0 %50 %100 18 - 32 ages 33 - 48 ages 49+ ages

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 45 / 71

3.2.3. Education Level The change in these clusters, which are determined by the level of school they have recently completed, is in line with the general political preference you follow from the Barometer surveys.

IBB candidate preference according to the education level

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 52 26 3 19

March 48 35 2 15 high

school June 49 39 1 11 Less than Less

January 36 36 5 22

March 38 48 2 13 High school June 38 50 0 11

January 26 48 6 19 March 26 56 2 16

June 23 64 1 11 University %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other Swing voter

The rate of those who prefer İmamoğlu is higher in the higher education group than lower education groups just like the CHP voters, and has increased within 6 months. Among the university graduates that constitute 24 percent of Istanbul's adult population, the rate of those who say that they will vote for Ekrem İmamoğlu seems to have risen from 48 percent to 64 percent.

Yıldırım’s vote decreased in the cluster, in which he is strong Yıldırım receives more votes from those who have an education level less than high school. However, the situation that we mentioned at the beginning is also seen in the low educated people where Yıldırım is strong; Yıldırım's vote remained the same or slightly changed in all education groups within a 6-month period. On the other hand, Imamoğlu's vote increases in all 3 clusters with the decreasing rate of swing voters as the election approaches.

When we examine the profiles in terms of education level, we can say that Imamoğlu has a slightly more educated voter profile compared to the general Istanbul population. On the other hand, while 46 percent of Istanbul is consisting of those who have an education level less than high school, we can say that 60 percent of those who say that they will vote for Yıldırım are in this group.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 46 / 71

Educationlevel according to the IBB candidate preference

İstanbul 46 31 24

January 60 26 14 March 58 28 13

June 57 29 14 B. B. Yıldırım

January 36 32 33

E. March 40 33 27

June 37 32 32 İmamoğlu

January 31 35 33 March 58 23 19 Other June 63 13 25

January 47 31 21

March 49 27 23 voter Swing June 45 31 25 %0 %50 %100 Less than high school High school University

The education profile of the swing voter is a bit more like the voter profile of Yıldırım. The reason for this may be attributed to the fact that Ak Parti voters, who are likely to support Yıldırım in this election, have continued their indecision.

3.2.4. Employment status Another parameter where differentiation is observed is the employment status of the people. First of all, we observe that Yıldırım's votes remained at a fixed point in all 3 researches and Imamoğlu has increased his votes in all of them.

The housewives make up the cluster, from which Yıldırım received the most votes. We know from the Barometer Survey that housewives, which account for more than a quarter of Istanbul's population, support the Ak Parti and Erdoğan more than other clusters. However, when we compare three researches, we see that even though Yıldırım has the superiority in the cluster of housewives, İmamoğlu has increased his vote from 22 percent to 35 percent.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 47 / 71

IBB candidate preference according to employment status

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 30 46 4 19

March 31 52 2 15 collar White June

employee 30 59 0 11

January 45 32 5 18

March 40 44 2 14 Worker,

n, farmer n, June tradesma 42 49 1 9

January 42 39 2 16 March 37 47 2 13

Retiree June 41 47 1 11

January 53 22 3 22 March 52 30 2 16

June 51 35 1 13 Housewife

January 32 35 9 25 March 31 54 2 13

Student June 28 59 1 12

January 34 44 3 19 March

ed 34 47 1 18

June 28 58 1 13 Unemploy %0 %50 %100

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

It should be noted that 6 months ago Yıldırım had superiority over Imamoglu in the clusters of workers and retirees, but first as 31 March approaches and then as 23 June approaches he fell behind his opponent in these clusters. These two groups can be defined as the social clusters in which the Ak Parti is strong.

Imamoğlu made a difference among students The cluster in which Imamoğlu has the highest presence is the cluster of white-collar employees, including civil servants, private sector employees and self-employed. However, especially after March, İmamoğlu had a strong dominance among the students who make up about 10 percent of the population of Istanbul. Especially undecided students stated that their preferences were İmamoğlu when the election approached.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 48 / 71

Another cluster in which İmamoğlu has increased his vote recently is the unemployed, whose rates are between 6-8 percent in the adult population. Among the unemployed people, the undecided ones have started to prefer İmamoğlu after 31 March.

Employment status according to the IBB candidate preference

İstanbul 21 26 13 28 7 6

January 16 25 13 33 7 5

March 16 23 12 37 7 4

B. Yıldırım June 16 27 13 36 5 4

January 30 22 15 17 10 8

March 25 24 14 20 11 6

June 26 26 12 20 9 7 E. İmamoğluE.

January 22 29 7 19 18 4

March 25 20 13 28 9 3 Other June 8 25 17 29 8 8

January 22 20 10 32 11 5

March 21 22 12 31 8 6

Swing voter June 20 21 12 33 8 6

%0 %50 %100

High level Worker, tradesman, farmer Retired Housewife Student Unemployed

3.2.5. Income level In addition to employment status, when we examine household income groups, we see that as education and income level increases and with good working conditions, the tendency to vote for İmamoğlu increases. When we look at the top 3 income groups, we see that not only those who prefer İmamoğlu are more, but also that İmamoğlu increases his vote within these clusters within the 6-month frame.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 49 / 71

As income increases, İmamoğlu’s vote increases; however Imamoğlu’s vote increase in the low- income cluster, too Yıldırım's dominance in lower income groups in January seems to have decreased according to the next two surveys. The analysis on the basis of the socio-economic status of the districts points to a similar finding in our ballot box analysis section.

IBB Candidate preference according to household income

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 41 26 2 31 March 33 44 1 22

1200 1200 TL June 48 34 0 18 and below and

January 44 32 2 22

March 41 41 1 16 1201 1201 -

2000 2000 TL June 41 44 2 13

January 47 29 4 20

March 46 36 2 16 2001 2001 -

3000 3000 TL June 42 45 1 13

January 41 35 5 20

March 42 45 2 11 3001 3001 -

5000 TL June 44 49 1 7

January 35 45 6 14

March 30 55 3 13 5001 5001 -

8000 8000 TL June 37 54 0 9

January 27 53 8 13 March 27 62 1 10

8001 8001 TL June 28 62 0 9 and above and %0 %50 %100

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 50 / 71

3.2.6. Lifestyle Clusters In addition to basic demographic cleavages such as education, employment status or income, we observe much more significant changes when we look at the parameters that describe rater the identity of people such as lifestyle, religiousness or ethnic identity.

First of all, when we look at the lifestyle clusters, with which people describe themselves, we can say that Yıldırım increased its vote slightly in the last stage among the Religious Conservatives where Yıldırım is the most powerful. However, it is possible to see that even among the Religious Conservatives, where the Ak Parti, and therefore Yıldırım, is strong, İmamoğlu has increased his votes.

IBB Candidate Preference according to the lifestyle clusters

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 6 67 13 14

March 10 72 3 15 Non-

believer June 3 91 0 6

January 27 50 4 19 March 25 60 1 14

Believer June 18 70 11

January 50 25 4 22 March 46 37 2 16

Religious June 49 39 1 11

January 63 17 2 19 March 58 27 4 12

Devout June 70 20 1 9 %0 %50 %100

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

There is a lifestyle differentiation; however, there are also common areas When we look at the distribution of candidate voters to the lifestyle clusters, we can clearly see how the two voter groups differentiate. Among the voters of Yıldırım, there is a high rate of those who define themselves as Religious Conservatives, and among those of Imamoglu who define themselves as Modern. However, based on this observation, it would be wrong to say that the voter groups of the two candidates have completely different lifestyles. Over 10 percent of the Yıldırım voters identify themselves as Modern, while 10 percent of Imamoglu voters identify themselves as Religious Conservative.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 51 / 71

Distribution of lifestyle clusters according to the preference of the IBB Candidate

İstanbul 35 41 24

January 13 51 36

B. March 15 45 39

Yıldırım June 12 47 41

January 57 32 11 u

E. March 49 37 14

June 54 35 10 İmamoğl

Janaury 38 42 20 March 23 28 45

Other June 13 33 54

January 29 51 19

March 29 46 23 voter Swing June 35 49 16 %0 %50 %100

Modern Traditional Conservative Religious Conservative

3.2.7. Religiousness In addition to the lifestyle, we have included in our Istanbul research the question of the felt level of religiousness that we ask people in every study. As the level of religiousness increases, we can say that Yıldırım's vote increases clearly. As it can be seen in the following graph, the cluster that we describe as ‘unbeliever’ as ‘they do not believe in the requirements of the religion’, constitutes 6 percent of the population of Istanbul. Within this cluster, the rate of those who state that they would vote for Yıldırım is 3 percent. On the other hand, the cluster which fulfills all the requirements of religion and which we call ‘devout’ is above 10 percent. However, unlike the non-believers' relationship with Yıldırım, one fifth of the devouts stated that they would vote for İmamoğlu. In addition, in the cluster that describes itself as a believer, Yıldırım's loss of votes can be observed clearly.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 52 / 71

IBB Candidate Preference according to the lifestyle clusters

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 6 67 13 14

March 10 72 3 15 Non-

believer June 3 91 0 6

January 27 50 4 19 March 25 60 1 14

Believer June 18 70 0 11

January 50 25 4 22 March 46 37 2 16

Religious June 49 39 1 11

January 63 17 2 19 March 58 27 4 12

Devout June 70 20 1 9 %0 %50 %100

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

Religiousness level according to the IBB candidate preference İstanbul 6 26 57 11

January 1 19 63 17

B. March 1 15 64 19

Yıldırım June 12 70 19

January 14 42 38 6 u

E. March 9 34 48 8

İmamoğl June 11 37 46 4

January 21 29 45 4 March 9 9 55 25 Other June 4 83 13

January 3 26 61 9

March 4 23 62 11 voter Swing June 7 27 58 9 %0 %50 %100 Nonbeliever Believer Religious Devout

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 53 / 71

3.2.8. Ethnicity

The Ak Parti could not move Kurds’ votes It would not be wrong to argue that one of the most decisive actors in the 31 March and 23 June elections was Kurdish voters. It is possible to observe that the Cumhur Alliance, which has tried to receive the vote of the Kurds, more than half of whom are HDP voters, did not get a good result from this effort. Yıldırım could not increase his vote among Kurds in 6 months, while unable to increase; there has been a significant increase in the vote to Imamoğlu.

IBB Candidate preference according to ethnicity

Januay 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 45 33 2 19 March 43 40 2 15

Turkish June 43 45 1 11

January 26 38 12 24 March 26 56 3 14

Kurdish June 27 62 1 10

January 26 50 12 12

March 41 50 0 9 Zaza June 36 61 03

January 73 7 3 17

March 46 15 8 31 Arab June 66 22 6 6

January 33 39 5 23 March 31 53 4 11 Other June 27 59 0 14 %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

Kurds’ support to Imamoğlu increased further after March 31 At the beginning of the election process for March 31, half of the Kurds, one third of whom had not yet decided on one of the two candidates, said that just before March 31 they would vote for İmamoğlu, while before 23 June 62 percent stated they would vote for Ekrem İmamoğlu. In other words, after the decision to repeat the elections, the supporters of İmamoğlu among Kurds increased. A similar observation can be drawn from the graph below showing the ethnic distribution of the candidates' voters. As you can see, the rate of Kurds among those who say that they will vote for İmamoğlu seems to have increased at every stage.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 54 / 71

Ethnic Identity distribution according to IBB candidates

İstanbul 78 17 3

January 84 10 4 March 84 11 3

June 84 12 2 B. B. Yıldırım

January 75 18 5

E. March 72 22 5

June 72 22 3 İmamoğlu

January 44 47 6 March 63 27 8 Other June 75 17 8

January 75 18 5

March 78 16 3 voter Swing June 80 16 3 %0 %50 %100 Turkish Kurdish Zaza Arab Other

3.2.9. Religion / sect In order to understand the preferences of Alevis, which make up 5 per cent of the society and which are the other big minority in Turkey’s society, we look at candidate preferences on the basis of religion/sect differentiation.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 55 / 71

IBB Candidate Preference according to the religious sect

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 48 28 4 20

March 44 39 2 15 Sunni Muslim June 44 44 1 11

January 7 77 4 12

March 6 82 11 Alevi

Muslim June 6 87 1 6

January 12 60 7 21 March 12 63 4 21 Diğer June 8 80 12 %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

Barometer surveys show that Alevis are already largely CHP supporters. Within this framework, it is predictable that they support İmamoğlu. However, even among the Alevis, the vote of Imamoğlu has risen from 77 percent to 87 percent, revealing a striking picture.

Among Sunni Muslims, which make up the majority of Istanbul at 90 percent as is the case in Turkey, Yıldırım has lost 4 points from January to June.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 56 / 71

3.2.10. Place of birth We should look at the change from March 31 to June 23 not only based on demographic structures or identities of people, but also based on birthplaces because of their importance in terms of situatedness and identity. In this context, we divided the place of birth of the interviewees into regions and looked at how the votes of those, who were born in these regions, have changed from January to June.

Distribution of those who live in Istanbul according to regions

İstanbul 36

Western Marmara 2

Aegean 2

Easter 3

Western Anatolia 2

Mediterrenean 3

Central Anatolian 6

West 12

East Black Sea 9

Northeast Anatolian 7

Middleeast Anatolian 8

Southeast Anatolian 9

Abroad 2

0 20 40

Firstly, when we look at the distribution of birth places, we see that 36 percent of those living in Istanbul were born in Istanbul, 21 percent come from the East and West Black Sea, and 24 percent come from 3 Eastern regions.

In our analysis on the basis of the place of birth, we actually encounter a situation parallel to the previous general finding. Among those who were born in 12 different regions, we do not observe a region, in which Yıldırım has increased his vote significantly. Among those born in Western and Central Anatolia, we can say that there is a slight increase in Yıldırım’s vote, but Imamoglu has increased his vote as much as Yıldırım among those groups.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 57 / 71

IBB Candidate Preference According to the Place of Birth

Jan 37 37 4 22

June 36 53 11 İstanbul

Jan 26 52 3 19 a

West June 21 71 0 8 Marmar

Jan 25 53 2 20

June 26 62 12 Aegean

Jan 45 34 2 19 a

June 36 51 13

Eastern Marmar

Jan 44 35 4 17

a n

June 54 40 0 6

Anatoli Wester

Jan 46 37 1 16

June 33 60 6

renean Mediter

Jan 50 32 4 14 a

June 55 34 3 8

Anatoli Central

Jan 53 25 1 21

Sea June 50 36 1 13

Wester n Blackn

Jan 58 27 2 12

Sea East

Black June 56 29 15

Jan 38 33 6 22

st st A. June 45 42 1 12 Northea

Jan 34 39 5 22

June 31 59 10

east A.east Central

Jan 34 29 14 24

ast A. ast June 31 57 1 11 Southe

Jan 55 21 0 23

June 27 57 0 16 Abroad %0 %50 %100

Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 58 / 71

3.3. Candidate Preference Based on Media and Social Media Preferences

3.3.1. News to follow on TV channel We state in the different Barometer reports that the preferences of the people regarding the media, especially the TV channel preferred for following the news, are highly determinative in terms of political preferences. In this context, when we examine the candidate preference according to the channels, we see a situation parallel to the general political preference.

Candidate Preference according to the TV channel to follow the News

A Haber 90 4 1 5 ATV 81 8 10 TRT 72 11 17 Kanal D 63 27 1 9 Show TV 60 23 1 16 Haber Türk 49 39 1 10 NTV 47 34 2 17 Star TV 44 41 2 14 CNN Türk 37 52 11 Don't… 20 61 3 16 Fox TV 5 88 1 7 Halk TV 1 94 5

%0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

Among those who prefer the pro-government TV channels such as A Haber, ATV, TRT, the tendency to vote for Yıldırım is both much higher than the average and viewers of other channels.

The viewer cluster that İmamoğlu received more votes than Yıldırım is limited to Fox TV and Halk TV. CNNTürk, for which we can claim that the audience profile changed after the transfer to the Demirören group, had initially a much more opposing profile. In terms of preference for the Istanbul elections, İmamoğlu has superiority among the viewers of this channel, although not as much as in Fox TV and Halk TV, whose viewers are predominantly opposed. Those who do not watch the news on television show a more opposing image than the average of Istanbul.

At this point, it is necessary to conduct this analysis together with the size of the audience of the channels. Again, we know from the Barometer surveys that the rate of following the news broadcasts other than Fox TV has experienced a significant decrease especially in the last one year. As can be seen on the graph above, 35 percent of respondents say they watch the news on Fox TV. Thirty one out of this 35 said that they would vote for Imamoglu.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 59 / 71

On the other hand, 32 percent of the Istanbul population states that they watch the news on TRT, ATV and A Haber, although we have stated that the ratings have decreased. Twenty six percent of the 41 percent (those who stated that they would vote for Yıldırım), are viewers of these channels. Candidate Preference according to the TV channel to follow the News

A Haber 8 ATV 13 1 2 TRT 5 1 1 Kanal D 2 1 Show TV 2 1 1 Haber Türk 1 1 NTV 1 1 Star TV 1 1 CNN Türk 1 1 Don't watch 2 5 1 Fox TV 2 31 2 Halk TV 3

0 10 20 30 40 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

3.3.2. Social Media Another parameter that manifests variability in political preferences is the use of social media. Before examining the candidate preferences of social media users, it is useful to determine at what rate these channels are followed in the country and by the population of Istanbul.

Social media usage rates in Istanbul 63 Whatsapp 61 52 Instagram 41 50 Facebook 44

Youtube 35 31 Istanbul 26 Twitter 19 Turkey 7 Don't use social media 5 14 Don't use internet 24

0 20 40 60 80

Internet penetration, which is 76 percent throughout the country, is above 80 percent in Istanbul. More than half of those living in Istanbul use Instagram and more than a quarter use Twitter.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 60 / 71

IBB Candidate preference according to the use of social media

March 40 43 2 15

June 41 49 1 9 İstanbul

March 37 47 2 14 k

June 39 52 0 9 Faceboo

March 30 53 2 15

Twitter June 25 65 1 10

March 36 49 2 13 m

June 34 57 0 10 Instagra

March 47 32 2 19 use

Do not Do June 51 35 1 13 Internet %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other No answer

Twitter users are one of the clusters that support İmamoğlu at most. In January, 53 per cent of the Twitter users stated that they would vote for Imamoğlu and thiis support for the Millet Alliance candidate increased up to 65 percent before June 23.

The cluster having the most parallel distribution with the general preference is comprised of Facebook users. Among Instagram users, whose average age is younger, it is possible to see İmamoğlu weight, even if not as much as Twitter.

Those who do not use the Internet are one of the rare clusters, in which Yıldırım’s vote increased Among 14 percent of non-Internet users, Yıldırım receives much higher votes. Another feature of those who do not use the Internet is the fact that it makes up one of the rare clusters where the vote of Yıldırım increases in a 2-month frame. At this point, it should be noted that 26 percent of those who do not use the Internet are Fox TV viewer, while 45 percent follow the news on the ATV, A News or TRT. In other words, we can argue that there is a relationship between not using the internet and being pro-government or at least following news from pro- government channels.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 61 / 71

3.4. Basic Fİndings in Voter Profiles

Considering the analysis of the voter profiles of the candidates and the candidate preference in different profiles together, which we reveal by comparing the data of 3 different Istanbul- specific surveys conducted during the 31 March local elections and the subsequent Istanbul elections, we reach the following findings:

• Binali Yıldırım's vote seems to have remained at the same fixed point before March 31 and June 23 process. It is necessary to interpret this situation considering that the rate of swing voters decreased at every stage. If his vote remains fixed in any way, when the rate swing voters decreases, it means that the vote for Yıldırım has decreased. This situation occurs in almost all social clusters. There are very rare social clusters in which Yıldırım has increased his vote in this process.

• Imamoğlu's vote, on the other hand, has increased in all components of Istanbul residents both before and after 31 March. Imamoğlu shows a visible increase especially among the youth, students, and unemployed and most importantly among the Kurds.

• Binali Yıldırım's vote is in line with the Ak Parti vote in the Barometer data in demographic clusters. As the education level and income level increases, his vote rate decreases. As age and the level of religiousness increase, his vote increases, too.

• The rate of the Ak Parti voters, who were undecided about the candidate, is slightly and gradually increasing in three studies. Therefore, the rate of preferring Yıldırım falls from 95 to 90 percent. Based on these data, we can argue that in addition to the increase in votes of Imamoğlu, a group of Ak Parti partisans did not go to the polls.

• HDP voters have clearly supported İmamoğlu since March. When we look at all the findings together, we can say that HDP partisans played a critical role in the Istanbul elections.

• A significant number of MHP voters seem to have given up to cast a vote for Yıldırım at the last stage. However, it is difficult to say that they all preferred Imamoğlu.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 62 / 71

4. EVALUATION

We must evaluate and interpret the repeated 23 June Istanbul Mayoral election results first by recalling our findings and evaluations of the March 31 Local Election results and adding today. Let us summarize the points and dynamics that determine the main characteristics that we have identified in the April’19 Barometer and in our poll analysis report, which we later announced to the public:

1. ‘First, although there is a small difference between the numerical results and the numerical results of the 24 June 2018 General Elections, the political results produced by those small numerical differences have been and will be much greater. We will see and discuss these impacts in the coming days.’ It was quickly understood that this evaluation was also very appropriate. The political consequences of today's picture have the potential to further enhance these effects geometrically.

2. ‘Secondly, and more importantly, the Ak Parti lost its moral superiority to the opposition bloc for the first time at the end of the 7 election rally in the last five years. For the first time, the opposition bloc voters saw and felt that they can win in the election, cause the Ak Parti to go back with their votes and win.’ More importantly, the incumbent bloc voters felt that they could be defeated for the first time in 17 years of the Ak Parti rule.

In your opinion, who will win the 23 June Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality election?

41,5 56,0

0 25 50 75 100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other

As a matter of fact, according to our findings of the June’19 Barometer, those who pointed out to the ‘opposition’ to respond to the question ‘who will win’ got ahead for the first time in KONDA research since 2005. This moral superiority produced energy to the opposition bloc, while it caused loss of energy in the incumbent bloc.

3. The opposition block was first consolidated on 31 March at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Elections. This consolidation continued and gained strenght on 23 June.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 63 / 71

İncum- Opposition Total Non-voter Invalid HDP Other bent bloc bloc Voter 31 March Local Assembly 16.2 3.0 38.6 33.9 3.2 5.0 100.0 31 March İBB Mayorship 16.1 3.0 39.4 39.5 2.1 100.0 23 June İBB Mayorship 15.6 1.7 37.2 44.9 0.7 100.0

The table shows that the voters of the other parties, especially the HDP, other than the voters of the two parties of the Cumhur Alliance, were lined up behind Imamoğlu, the candidate of the opposition bloc on March 31, and even more strongly on June 23.

4. While the election system of the country has been based on representation until now, the system that aims to win 50 + 1 percent of the vote (simple majority) as a result of the Semi-Presidential System called ‘Cumhurbaşkanlığı Sistemi’ will produce changes in both blocks and the positions and structures of the parties. Either alliances or consolidation will be strengthened and the political system will be transformed into a dual game (power x opposition axis) and the party system will turn into a tripartite social structure (conservatives x secularists x Kurds). In this respect, June 23 results can be considered as the first costume rehearsal.

5. The actual meaning of the results of the 31 March and 23 June elections comes out when we compare it to the June 24 General Election numerical table. As can be seen in the table below, it is estimated in the votes of Local Assembly, the Cumhur Alliance lost 5.1 points in total and the HDP lost 5.4 points from the June 24 votes. However, it seems that these lost votes did not turn to the Millet Alliance, and that the Millet Alliance increased its votes on June 24 by only 0.9 points. Nearly half of the lost votes are comprised of those who did not go to the polls, and the other half was comprised by the votes of voters who shifted towards other parties.

When the same calculation is made by comparing the votes of the Mayors and the votes of 24 June General Election, we see that there is a decrease of 5.8 points in the Cumhur Alliance votes and 7.2 points in the HDP votes. This time the vote of the Millet Alliances’ Presidential candidates increased by 3.9 points compared to June 24.

2019 2019 2019 2019 2018 Local Council- Mayor.- TURKEY Local Mayor election General 2018 Gen. El. 2018 Gen.El. Council votes votes Elec.votes difference difference Non-voter 15.5 15.7 11.5 4.0 4.2 Invalid vote 3.5 3.2 1.8 1.7 1.4 Cumhur Alliance 41.2 40.5 46.3 -5,.1 -5.8 Millet Alliance 29.1 32.1 28.2 0.9 3.9 HDP 4.7 2.9 10.1 -5.4 -7.2 Other 6.1 5.5 1.8 4.3 3.7 Total 100.0 99.9 100.0 0.0 0.0

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 64 / 71

The comparison of the March 31 Local Elections with the June 24 votes indicated three important dynamics: First, the incumbent bloc was losing votes, but despite this loss, it was still far ahead of the Millet's Alliance. On the other hand, we observed that the HDP and other parties were also included in the opposition bloc, which is the second important dynamic. The third important dynamic revealed that the electorate of the incumbent bloc was disturbed, started to question their parties, showed their doubt by not going to the polls, but was hesitant to shift towards the opposition bloc. In a way, it was possible to say that the transition between the two blocks was still very small, and even nonexistent.

We can understand based the findings that we will mention a little later that the inconvenience of the electorate of the incumbent bloc has increased during the period of 23 June. In spite of all these disturbances, the fact that the shift between the two blocks is still 1-2 points shows the depth and intensity of the polarization.

Invalid İncumbent Opposition Vote distributions Non-voter HDP Other Total Voter Vote Bloc Bloc 2018 General Election 11.6 1.4 44.3 30.0 11.0 1.7 100.0 2018 Presidential Elec- 11.9 1.4 43.4 36.1 6.3 1.0 100.0 tion 23 June İBB Mayorship 15.6 1.7 37.2 44.9 0.7 100.0

Differences emerged compared Incumbent Opposition Non-voter Invalid vote HDP Other Total to 23 June results bloc bloc 2018 General Election 4.0 0.3 -7.1 14.9 -11,0 -1.1 0 2018 Presidential Elec- 3.7 0.3 -6.1 8.7 -6,3 -0.3 0 tion

This can be interpreted based on the most important finding of our November’18 Barometer research, which we call ‘negative identification.’ According to Evren Balta, who evaluates our findings in the November’18 Barometer, ‘the settled masses of political parties that have a positive relationship with the party are much lower than those who have a negative relationship with the political parties, both on a per-party basis and in general. Consequently, voter behavior is determined by the negative relationship with other parties rather than the positive relationship with one party.’

As a matter of fact, in our March’19 Barometer report, we wrote to our subscribers regarding the expectations of March 31: ‘The parties are stuck in identities and polarizations and this continues. The findings give the impression that there will be no major numerical changes other than alliance blocks or changes of 1-2 points in the country's 50-50 percent political division picture. Considering the findings of all Barometer surveys after June 24, the electorate’s probability of movement within the poles is stronger than the probability of movement between the poles. For this reason, the voters dissolved from the two major parties are more likely to turn to other parties within the alliance than to the other parties in the opposite alliance.

‘In particular, the opposition bloc is consolidated and it is observed that almost all opposition voters act together with the feeling and urge to stand against the power bloc, even if it is not an

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 65 / 71

institutional alliance. It is confirmed by the findings that the voters' negative feelings towards the opposite pole rather than the loyalty to their parties gain weight and that the voters who dissolve from their party cannot shift towards the opposite pole or alliance because of the strengthening of negative identification.’

6. Polarization, political consolidation, othering discourse on political level, economic turmoil in everyday life, series of tensions in international relations, all of which are very important caused a complex and uncertain state, which gave the meaning of the votes on 23 June more than a vote for Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality vote.

In this election, will we vote to elect the IBB Mayor or for the course of Turkey?

İstanbul 32 68

Ekrem İmamoğlu 24 76

Binali Yıldırım 38 62

% 0 % 50 % 100 To elect the Mayor For the course of Turkey.

According to our findings, 68 percent of Istanbul voters said they voted for the country's progress on 23 June. Among those who said that they would vote for İmamoğlu, this rate was 76 percent, while it was 62 percent among those who would vote for Yıldırım.

To put it briefly, while on 31 March it was voted as if general elections were held on 31 March, rather than local elections, this time it went one step further and it was voted for the country's progress, not for the political preference or the Mayor.

7. It is understood that the Supreme Election Board's repetition decision and the cancellation of the Istanbul elections affected the voters' feelings of justice and conscience. The fact that even one-fifth of the voters of the incumbent bloc did not approve this decision was perhaps the foremost among the reasons for the decline of the Yıldırım’s vote.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 66 / 71

With the decision of the YSK, the Istanbul election is repeated, what do you think about this decision?

İstanbul 41 59

Binali Yıldırım 88 12 e

ce Ekrem İmamoğlu 4 96

election

23 23 June

preferen candidat

Binali Yıldırım 85 15

Ekrem İmamoğlu 4 96

election

23 23 June candidate

preference No answer 32 68 (ballot paper) (ballot

Cumhur Alliance 82 18 Millet Alliance 6 94

preference HDP 4 96 General party General

Cumhur Alliance 79 21

31

vote Local

March Millet Alliance + HDP 4 96 election %0 %50 %100 The YSK made the right decision, I agree. The YSK's decision is wrong, I disagree.

8. Another factor of the loss of the election by the incumbent bloc was the “loss of trueness’ experienced by the incumbent bloc. Before the 31st of March, three perceptions in three different levels such as romantic slogans and films, very harsh and marginalizing rhetoric on the stands and the fear of inflation and unemployment in daily life, triggered the feeling of protecting the party of the incumbent bloc voters. While the incumbent bloc had difficulty in convincing its voters, this loss of trueness and reaction to the established language consolidated the opposition bloc.

9. Nevertheless, the analysis of the districts' on the basis of total household averages points out to the fact that the districts in the middle of the income ranking have more impact on the loss of votes of the incumbent block. This analysis shows that, under the influence of the economic turmoil, some of the voters casted a vote according to their economic class positions.

10. Another factor affecting the election outcome was the preferences of young voters. Yıldırım's vote among young voters remained constant, while Imamoğlu's vote rose every month and increased over 9 points of the Istanbul average. Among young voters, those who will not vote have fallen by half.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 67 / 71

IBB candidate preference according to age groups

January 41 34 4 20 March 40 43 2 15

İstanbul June 41 49 1 9

January 36 37 7 21

March 34 48 2 16 ages

18 - 32 18 - June 36 37 7 21

January 42 33 4 21

March 43 41 2 15 ages

33 - 48 33 - June 42 33 4 21

January 47 33 2 17 March 43 41 3 13

49+ 49+ ages June 47 33 2 17 %0 %50 %100 Binali Yıldırım Ekrem İmamoğlu Other Swing-Non-No ans.

11. Considering how these results will affect the political developments in the future, it is possible to say that there are areas of opportunity for the country.

✓ For a government which has retained the government power at national and local level for 17 years uninterrupted and has not lost any election during this period, power disruption is a natural risk. The political balance created by the local opposition to this deterioration may provide an opportunity to overcome the current political and social polarizations. ✓ In the face of complex multi-dimensional, multi-actor issues facing the country, it may be an opportunity for political reconciliation and an opportunity to expand the political sphere. ✓ Second, if a new model of local service, development and citizen engagement model can be produced where the opposition bloc won the elections, there may be an opportunity for a reform of the local government and public administration, which is an inevitable necessity of the country.

Of course, for all these, all political actors must rethink the needs and demands of society and have a desire for change. What we note is ultimately what the rational mind produces regarding the issues. We will see whether political actors will continue to do politics according to their identities and polarization as they have done so far, or will their desire and efforts to change these habits prevail.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 68 / 71

5. RESEARCH ID

5.1. The General Description of the Survey

The survey that this report is based on was conducted by KONDA Research and Consultancy Limited (KONDA Araştırma ve Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti.).

The field survey was conducted on 15 – 16 June 2019. This report presents the political trends, preferences and profiles of the adult population above the age of 18 in Turkey, as observed on the dates of the field survey.

The survey is designed and conducted with the purpose to determine and to monitor trends and changes in the preferences of respondents who represent the adult population above the age of 18 in Turkey. The margin of error of the survey is +/- 1.7 at 95 percent confidence level and +/- 2.3 at 99 percent confidence level.

5.2. The Sample

The sample was prepared by stratification of the data on population and educational level of neighborhoods and villages based on Address-Based Population Registration System with the neighborhood and village results of the general elections dated November 1, 2015.

Within the scope of the survey, face-to-face interviews were carried out with 3498 individuals in 157 neighborhoods in the border of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Age and gender quotas were applied for 24 questionnaires conducted in each neighborhood.

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 69 / 71

6. GLOSSARY of TERMS

All findings in Barometer reports are based on answers to the questions directed to respondents who were interviewed face-to-face in field surveys. Some questions and response options are then used in the rest of the report in short or simplified form. For example, the respondents who respond to the question on how religious they see themselves as “a person who is a believer, but does not fulfill religious requirements” are shortly identified as “believers” in the report. This glossary is prepared for both the readers who receive the report for the first time and the readers who need further clarification on the terms. The first table provides a list of the terms and their explanations, and the following tables list the questions and response options which establish the basis for these terms..

DEFINITION ALEVI MUSLIM: A person who identifies his/her religion/sect as Alevi Muslim ARAB: A person who identifies his/her ethnic origin as Arab ATHEIST: A person with no religious belief BELIEVER: A person who believes in the requirements of the religion, but does not fulfill them completely CHADOR: A woman who wears chador or a man whose spouse wears a cha- dor HEADSCARF: A woman who does not cover her head or a man with a headscarf or whose spouse does not cover her head with a headscarf KURDISH: A person who identifies his/her ethnic origin as Kurdish LOWER CLASS: Households whose income per capita is in the lowest 20 percent segment LOWER MIDDLE CLASS: Households with an income per capita in the 60 percent segment but which do not own a car METROPOLITAN: Settlements which are located within the integrated boundaries of the most crowded 15 cities (differs from the official definition) MODERN: A person who identifies his/her lifestyle as modern MULTIPLE CORRESPOND- It is a data analysis technique for nominal categorical data, used ENCE ANALYSIS to detect and represent underlying structures in a data set. It is used for applying Correspondence Analysis (CA) to large data sets with more than two variables. NEW MIDDLE CLASS: Households whose income per capita is in the 60 percent seg- ment and which own a car NO COVER: A woman who does not cover her head or a man whose spouse does not cover her head NON-BELIEVER: A person who does not believe in the requirements of the religion PIOUS: A person who fulfills the requirements of the religion completely RELIGIOUS: A person who tries to fulfill the requirements of the religion RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE: A person who identifies his/her lifestyle as religious conservative RURAL AREA: Settlements with a population of less than 4000 (differs from the official definition) SUNNI MUSLIM: A person who identifies his/her religion/sect as Sunni Muslim TURBAN: A woman who wears a turban or a man whose spouse wears a tur- ban

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 70 / 71

TURKISH: A person who identifies his/her ethnic origin as Turkish TRADITIONAL CONSERVA- A person who identifies his/her lifestyle as traditional conservative TIVE: URBAN AREA: Settlements with a population of more than 4000 (differs from the official definition) UPPER CLASS: Households whose income per capita is in the highest 20 percent segment ZAZA: A person who identifies his/her ethnic origin as Zaza

6.1. Questions and Response Options

Which religion or sect do you feel you belong Which of the three lifestyle clusters below to? do you feel yourself belonging to? Sunni Muslim Modern Alevi Muslim Traditional Conservative Other Religious Conservative Settlement Code (Data obtained from the sample) We are all citizens of the Turkish Republic, Rural but we may have different ethnic origins; which identity do you know/feel that you Urban belong to? Metropolitan Turkish Do you cover your head or does your spouse Kurdish cover her head when going out of your Zaza home? How do you cover your head? Arab No head cover Other Headscarf Turban Chador Which of the below describes you in terms Bachelor male of piety? A person who does not believe in the re- Economic classes (determined by using quirements of the religion household size, household income and car A person who believes in the requirements ownership) of the religion, but does not fulfill them com- Lower class pletely A person who tries to fulfill the requirements Lower middle class of the religion New middle class A person who fulfills the requirements of the Upper class religion completely

KONDA JUNE’19 BAROMETER BALLOT BOX ANALYSIS OF THE 23 JUNE ISTANBUL ELECTION 71 / 71 Yıldız Posta Caddesi Çiğdem Apt. No:11 / 6 Gayrettepe, 34349 Şişli İstanbul [email protected] +90 212 275 17 66 (pbx) +90 212 275 17 68 (fax)