Abstract :

Purpose: This research aims to determine the relationship between voting behavior and political image as well as the demographic characteristics of the voting behavior tendencies of Generation Z in the 2024 Election in Indonesia.

Methods: Data collection uses a questionnaire that has good validity and reliability, the questionnaire contains a measurement scale for voting behavior and political image. The measurement of voting behavior variables uses a scale that includes aspects of knowledge, attitudes and actions. Meanwhile, the measurement of the political image variable uses a scale that includes aspects of competence, benevolence, integrity, fairness and reliability. Respondents are given alternative answers to choose one of the four answers provided starting from the options Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Scoring for each answer choice for each variable is 1-4. Apart from that, the questionnaire also contains descriptive questions regarding respondents’ voting tendencies. The number of samples that met the criteria for first-time voter respondents was 453 respondents taken using a purposive sampling technique. The data analysis technique uses the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Test (r) which aims to determine the level of closeness of the relationship between variables which is expressed by the correlation coefficient (r).

Results: The research results show a significant positive correlation between political image and voting behavior. The findings also show that the categorization of respondents’ political image is medium and the categorization of voting behavior is in the high category. The majority of respondents chose candidates based on their track record, ethnicity and religion, having a nationalist and religious image, and looking cool and trendy.

Conclusion: The political image and voting behavior of Generation Z can be concluded to be correlated with each other. This research also shows how the candidate’s political image is desired by first-time voters.

Keywords :

References :

1. Carlos, R. dkk. (2012). Youth Voting Behavior. http:www.isu.com/indianastateuniversit/com602/methods/of/research/creativity.
2. Fensterheim, H., & Baer, J. (2005). Jangan Bilang Ya Bila Anda Akan Mengatakan Tidak. (Buditjahya, Trans.) Jakarta: Gunung Jati
3. (2007). Marketing politik. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
4. Heryanto, G.G. (2019). Panggung KomunikasiPolitik. Yogyakarta: IRCiSoD Kompas.
5. Klimek, P., Diakonova, M., Eguíluz, V. M., Miguel, M. S., & Thurner, S. (2016). Dynamical origins of the community structure of an online multilayer society. New Journal of Physics, 18(8). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/8/083045
6. Limilia, P & Ariadne, E. (2018). Pengetahuan dan persepsi politik pada remaja. Jurnal Psikologi Sosial 16(1):45-55. DOI: 10.7454/jps.2018.5
7. Newman, B. & J. Seth. (1985). A model of primary voter behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 178-187.
8. Nimmo, D. (2009). Komunikasi Politik. Komunikator, Pesan, dan Media. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
9. Notoatmodjo, G. (2007). Exploring the’weakest link’: A study of personal password security. Doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland.
10. Nursal, A. (2004). Political marketing: strategi memenangkan pemilu: Sebuah pendekatan baru kampanye pemilihan DPR, DPD, Presiden. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
11. Oyedemi, T. & Mahlatji, D. (2016). The ‘born-free’ non-voting youth: a study of voter apathy among a selected cohort of South African youth. Politikon, 43(3), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2016.1160857

12. Poltracking Indonesia (2014). Kecenderungan Sikap & Perilaku Pemilih dalam Pemilu Legislatif 2014. https://poltracking.com/kecenderungan-sikap-perilaku-pemilih-dalam-pemilu-legislatif-2014-2/
13. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. On The Horizon, 9, 3-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
14. Ristianto, C. & Gatra, S. (2019). Survei Charta Politika: Jokowi-Ma’ruf 53,2 Persen, Prabowo-Sandiaga 34,1 Persen. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2019/01/16/17210081/survei-charta-politika-jokowi-maruf-532-persen-prabowo-sandiaga-341-persen.

15. Santrock, J. W. (2007). Remaja. Jakarta: Erlangga.
16. Sheerin, C. A. (2007). Political efficacy and youth non-voting: a qualitative investigation into the attitudes and experiences of young voters and non-voters in New Zealand. Thesis. University of Canterbury. Political Science and Communication. http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/4398
17. Southwell, P. L. & Pirch, K. D. (2003). Political cynicism and the mobilization of black voters. Social Science Quarterly, 84: 906-917. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404020.x
18. (2014). Psikologi Umum. CAPS: Yogyakarta.
19. Surbakti, R. (2010). Memahami Ilmu Politik. Yogyakarta: Grasindo.
20. Wicaksono, A. P. (2009). Perilaku pemilih dalam pemilihan kepala daerah langsung (studi penelitian pada pemilihan gubernur/wakil gubernur jawa tengah tahun 2008 di Kota Semarang). Thesis. Universitas Diponegoro.
21. Wisdawan, S. D. (2010). Identifikasi partai dan politik uang terhadap kemenangan Marmo-Hendi dalam pilkada langsung 2010 di Kota Semarang. Disertasi. Universitas Diponegoro.
22. Yusran, I. I. & Sapar. (2022). Pengaruh media sosial dan perilaku pemilih dalam memprediksi partisipasi pemilih pada pemilu 2024. Jurnal Darma Agung, 30(2), 187-203.
23. Yusran, I. I. & Sapar. (2022). Pengaruh media sosial dan perilaku pemilih dalam memprediksi partisipasi pemilih pada pemilu 2024. Jurnal Darma Agung, 30(2), 187-203.