Different Paths to the Same Choice? Electoral Decision-Making Among LGBTQ+ and Non-LGBTQ+ Voters

Research on the electoral behaviour of sexual and gender minorities has expanded in recent years. However, despite this growing body of work, the field remains at an early stage in explaining the mechanisms underlying electoral decision-making among LGBTQ+ individuals. Most existing analyses focus on aggregate LGBTQ+–non-LGBTQ+ comparisons and offer little leverage to examine heterogeneity within the LGBTQ+ electorate, which comprises diverse sexual and gender identities—including lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, trans*, queer, and further identities—potentially shaped by distinct political experiences. A key limitation of prior research is that sexual and gender identity is rarely measured through respondents’ self-identification at scale, and empirical evidence has often relied on small-N or convenience-based studies. This paper draws on original data from the German Sexual Identity and Election Study (GSIES), a purpose-built large-scale survey that systematically captures self-identified sexual and gender identities and enables the analysis of LGBTQ+ voters beyond the constraints of earlier data infrastructures. Building on the social-psychological model of voting, the paper investigates whether party identification, issue orientations, and candidate evaluations structure electoral decisions among LGBTQ+ voters in the same way as among non-LGBTQ+ voters. Rather than presuming the universal applicability of this model, the analysis estimates separate models for LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ respondents to assess similarities and differences in the internal structure and relative explanatory weight of these classic components of vote choice. Crucially, the paper goes beyond between-group comparisons by focusing on variation within the LGBTQ+ electorate itself. LGBTQ+ identity is conceptualised as a politically salient social identity shaped by differentiated experiences of social recognition and exclusion. The analysis therefore incorporates LGBTQ+-specific dimensions—such as coming out as a formative biographical experience and experiences of exclusion—to examine whether these experiences are associated with systematic differences in electoral decision-making beyond conventional predictors. Finally, the paper compares LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ voters within party electorates to assess whether similar vote choices are driven by the same underlying motivations among LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ voters. By combining classic social-psychological models with within-group and within-electorate analyses, the paper contributes to an emerging research agenda on minority voting behaviour.