Do racial identities determine voting behaviour in post-apartheid South Africa? To address this question, we draw from a representative sample of 3,905 registered voters in five metropolitan municipalities: Johannesburg, Tshwane, Durban, Cape Town, and Nelson Mandela Bay. Our findings are mixed. On the one hand, Black voters were significantly more likely to vote for the African National Congress, whereas Coloured, Indian, and especially white voters were more likely to vote for the Democratic Alliance. This contrast comes into particular focus when we examine how voters acted over the course of a three-election period. On the other hand, race was far from a guaranteed predictor, not the least because many chose to abstain from voting—a trend that extended, though unevenly, to all racial groups. Importantly, though, the electorate did not split between party loyalists and consistent abstainers. Instead, fluidity predominated: About half of the electorate changed positions between elections, either by switching between parties or between voting and abstaining. Our findings thus demonstrate what we call ‘racialized fluidity’: Many voters are changing their voting decision from one election to the next, but in the aggregate, racial identity remains correlated with voting decisions.

中文翻译：

---

南非大城市的投票决定和种族化流动性

种族身份是否决定后种族隔离南非的投票行为？为了解决这个问题，我们从五个大城市的 3,905 名登记选民中抽取了代表性样本：约翰内斯堡、茨瓦内、德班、开普敦和纳尔逊曼德拉湾。我们的发现好坏参半。一方面，黑人选民更有可能投票给非洲人国民大会，而有色人种、印度人，尤其是白人选民更有可能投票给民主联盟。当我们审视选民在三次选举期间的行为时，这种对比尤为突出。另一方面，种族远非一个可靠的预测因素，尤其是因为许多人选择弃权——这种趋势扩展到所有种族群体，尽管不均衡。不过重要的是，选民并没有在政党忠诚者和一贯弃权者之间分裂。相反，流动性占主导地位：大约一半的选民在两次选举之间改变了立场，要么在政党之间转换，要么在投票和弃权之间转换。因此，我们的研究结果证明了我们所说的“种族化流动性”：许多选民正在将他们的投票决定从一次选举更改为下一次选举，但总体而言，种族身份仍然与投票决定相关。