Anything to win
Voter Identification Requirements and Aggregate Turnout in the U.S.: How Campaigns Offset the Costs of Turning Out When Voting Is Made More Difficult
Jacob Neiheisel & Rich Horner
Election Law Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
In spite of the attention that has been lavished upon the subject in recent years, scholars have found little evidence demonstrating that voter identification laws have a substantial effect (either positive or negative) on aggregate levels of voter turnout. Recent work by Valentino and Neuner (2017) suggests that the disconnect between the predictions of rational choice models of voter turnout that focus on the costs of voting and the observed effects (or lack thereof) of voter ID requirements can be explained with reference to the countervailing influence of mobilization efforts on the part of Democrats. We test this proposition directly in this article using data on the location of Democratic campaign field offices over three presidential election cycles (2004, 2008, and 2012) coupled with information on the spread of voter ID requirements and other policies regulating access to the ballot box. Using a series of difference-in-difference models, we find some support for the notion that campaigns can effectively subsidize the costs of new legal-institutional barriers to the franchise.
Awakened: The Potential for Mobilization to Reshape Interest in Politics
Gabriel Nahmias
MIT Working Paper, May 2019
Abstract:
Interest in politics has been repeatedly shown to be a substantively important precursor to political participation. Unfortunately, sources of its variation beyond childhood socialization remain under-explored. This is likely due to a widespread belief that interest is intractable: "You've either got it or you don't." In response, I enumerate several mechanisms through which political mobilization might be expected to shift interest. This potential is then tested using a well-established most-likely case: the 2012 presidential campaign. A difference-in-differences analysis finds that residents of battleground states exhibit a notable increase in political interest between 2010 and 2014 compared to those in "spectator" states and an alternative specification using field office placement implicates campaign mobilization directly in precipitating this change. The magnitude of the estimated effect is equivalent to over 150,000 entirely disinterested North Carolinians becoming fully engaged who would have remained apathetic had they lived in Georgia. The change is concentrated among those without college degrees, indicating mobilization may compensate for marginalizing conditions. Further evidence shows the effect resulted in increased political knowledge and lingered into 2016. Overall, this analysis demonstrates that political mobilization can shift interest and underscores the importance of understanding how recruitment can reshape the motivations of the electorate.
Gender Differences in Politician Persistence
Melanie Wasserman
University of California Working Paper, November 2018
Abstract:
Why are women underrepresented in politics? This paper documents gender differences in the career paths of novice politicians by studying the persistence of candidates after they win or lose elections. I track the political trajectories of over 11,000 candidates in local California elections and use a regression discontinuity approach. Losing an election causes 50 percent more attrition among female than male candidates: an electoral loss causes men to be 16 percentage points less likely to run again within the next four years, whereas the drop for women is 25 percentage points. Yet the gender gap in persistence depends on the setting: I find no evidence of a gap among candidates for high female representation offices or among more experienced candidates. These results are inconsistent with behavioral explanations of women's differential attrition. Instead, the results suggest that in low information environments, voters may penalize novice female politicians, which deters women from running again. I discuss the implications of the results for the gender gap in officeholding.
"You Had Better Mention All of Them": Gendered Effects in Electoral Narratives
Pavielle Haines & Seth Masket
University of Denver Working Paper, March 2019
Abstract:
How does a loss narrative about a recent election influence voters' interpretation of the next election? Do voters' reactions depend on their own social identity? In an original conjoint experiment conducted shortly after the 2018 congressional midterm elections, white Democratic respondents were exposed to a vignette that ascribed Democrats' losses to the party's focus on identity politics. The identity politics narrative had an asymmetric effect on men and women's attitudes toward prospective 2020 presidential candidates. The treatment had a limited effect on men's candidate preferences, instead reinforcing those preferences by causing them to perceive the Democratic Party as even more liberal than their ideal. On the other hand, women who received the treatment were twice as likely to believe that the Democratic Party has focused too much on identity politics than women in the control. Treated women's preferences shifted away from female candidates explicitly looking to address gender and racial inequities, toward male candidates emphasizing generalist policies. In other words, while framing identity politics as electorally costly caused men to change their perceptions, it caused women to change their preferences.
The Divided Labor of Attack Advertising in Congressional Campaigns
Kenneth Miller
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
This article offers a theory of how party networks divide the labor of attacking opponents. Using an extensive data set of campaign advertising from the 2010 and 2012 congressional elections augmented with Nielsen television ratings data, it is shown that candidates attack opponents less when supporting outside groups attack more. Due to differences in how outside groups and candidates attack opponents, when candidates partially outsource attack advertising to independent expenditure groups, attacks in that campaign become more issue and policy based. Thus, in perhaps an unintended consequence of the divided labor of attack advertising, outside group involvement makes it more likely that an election campaign will foster citizen knowledge about policy positions of the candidates.
How Labor Unions Increase Political Knowledge: Evidence from the United States
David Macdonald
Political Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Labor unions have long been important political actors, mobilizing voters, shaping their members' attitudes, and influencing representation and economic inequality. However, little is known regarding unions' influence on political knowledge. In this paper, I argue that unions increase their members' political knowledge through two mechanisms: direct information provision and workplace discussion of politics. I use data from recent national election surveys and a matching technique, showing that union members, particularly those with less formal education, who face higher costs in seeking out political information, are significantly more politically knowledgeable than their non-union counterparts and better informed about where political parties and candidates stand on the issues. I conclude by discussing unions' capacity to reduce knowledge gaps and foster a more politically informed electorate.
Facial Dominance and Electoral Success in Times of War and Peace
Adam Berinsky, Sara Chatfield & Gabriel Lenz
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Do voters prefer dominant looking candidates in times of war? By replicating previous survey experiments, we find that respondents do prefer candidates with dominant facial features when war is salient. We then investigate whether these survey results generalize to the real world. Examining US Senate elections from 1990 to 2006, we test whether voters prefer candidates with dominant facial features in wartime elections more than in peacetime elections. In contrast with the survey studies, we find that dominant-looking candidates appear to gain a slight advantage in all elections but have no special advantage in wartime contexts. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings and conduct additional experiments to investigate one possible explanation: additional information about candidates may rapidly erode the wartime preference for dominant looking candidates. Overall, our findings suggest that the dominance-war findings may not generalize to the real world.
Believe It or Not? Partisanship, Preferences, and the Credibility of Campaign Promises
Pablo Fernandez-Vazquez & Alexander Theodoridis
Journal of Experimental Political Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
We use a novel survey experiment with a broadly representative sample to reveal an important phenomenon in voter integration of campaign communications: preference-mediated partisan motivation. When evaluating the credibility of candidate position changes on minimum wage policy (a readily quantifiable and salient issue domain), partisans do not take a new stance at face value, apply universal skepticism, or simply afford more credibility to co-partisans. Instead, they process a candidate's stance through an interaction between the voter's partisan allegiance and their own policy preference. Partisans update more when a co-partisan moves closer to them than when the candidate shifts away from them. The opposite pattern emerges with the other party's candidates: partisans tend to be more receptive if the candidate moves away from them. This feature of campaign message acceptance has profound implications for political communication and our understanding of partisan cognition.
The Mediating Role of Information Search in the Relationship Between Prejudice and Voting Behavior
Tessa Ditonto
Political Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Evidence on the extent to which prejudice serves as a barrier to black and Latino candidates for office is mixed. Some research has found that black and Latino candidates are disadvantaged in terms of their chances of winning election and that they are evaluated differently by voters, while other findings suggest that this may not be the case. This article examines the effects of racial prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior. It uses a unique experimental design to test for direct effects of prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior, as well as indirect effects of prejudice on these variables via the information that subjects seek out. I find that subjects higher in symbolic racism are less likely to vote "correctly" when their preferences most closely align with a black or Latino candidate and that they rate minority candidates more negatively than their white counterparts. I also find that subjects high in prejudice search for less information about minority candidates and that this less robust information search mediates the relationship between prejudice and candidate evaluation and vote measures. Results also suggest that increased information search may mitigate the effects of prejudice on correct voting.
Incumbency status and candidate responsiveness to voters in two-stage elections beginning with a primary
Kevin Banda, Thomas Carsey & John Curiel
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, forthcoming
Abstract:
Theories of representation suggest that candidates should respond ideologically to their constituency. Two-stage elections like those in the U.S. force candidates to decide which parts of their constituency they should respond to: citizens who are active enough to participate in primaries or those who only participate in general elections. We posit that non-incumbent candidates should mostly focus on the preferences of primary voters while incumbents should be largely unmoved by the preferences of either set of voters. We test these expectations using data from U.S. House and Senate contests and find support for our theory. Our results suggest that scholars should pay closer attention to the two-stage nature of U.S. elections when evaluating electoral responsiveness.
The Dynamics of Electoral Integrity: A Three-Election Panel Study
Andrew Daniller & Diana Mutz
Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 2019, Pages 46-67
Abstract:
When political leaders are chosen by democratic means, the electoral process supposedly legitimates their authority, whatever the outcome. Nonetheless, disliked democratic outcomes may result instead in denigration of the electoral process. If positive reactions to winning and negative reactions to losing ultimately balance one another out, then perceived electoral integrity should remain roughly constant in a highly competitive political environment such as the United States. However, little is known about the symmetry or duration of these effects. Using panel data spanning more than nine years, we examine individual perceptions of electoral integrity across three American presidential election cycles. Our conclusions suggest that the effects of winning versus losing are not symmetric. Moreover, effects on people's perceptions of electoral integrity are surprisingly persistent over time. We find that repeated losing has especially important long-term consequences for how citizens view elections.