Who Votes for the Future? Information, Expectations, and Endogeneity in Economic Voting

被引:25
|
作者
Lacy, Dean [1 ]
Christenson, Dino P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Dartmouth Coll, Dept Govt, HB 6108, Hanover, NH 03755 USA
[2] Boston Univ, Dept Polit Sci, 232 Bay State Rd, Boston, MA 02215 USA
关键词
Economic voting; Information; Political sophistication; Uncertainty; Attribution; Presidential elections; POLITICAL SOPHISTICATION; PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; AMERICAN ELECTORATE; UNITED-STATES; PERCEPTIONS; CHOICE; HETEROGENEITY; DETERMINANTS; ATTRIBUTIONS; BANKERS;
D O I
10.1007/s11109-016-9359-3
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Voters' four primary evaluations of the economy-retrospective national, retrospective pocketbook, prospective national, and prospective pocketbook-vary in the cognitive steps necessary to link economic outcomes to candidates in elections. We hypothesize that the effects of the different economic evaluations on vote choice vary with a voter's ability to acquire information and anticipate the election outcome. Using data from the 1980 through 2004 US presidential elections, we estimate a model of vote choice that includes all four economic evaluations as well as information and uncertainty moderators. The effects of retrospective evaluations on vote choice do not vary by voter information. Prospective economic evaluations weigh in the decisions of the most informed voters, who rely on prospective national evaluations when they believe the incumbent party will win and on prospective pocketbook evaluations when they are uncertain about the election outcome or believe that the challenger will win. Voters who have accurate expectations about who will win the election show the strongest relationship between their vote choice and sociotropic evaluations of the economy, both retrospective and prospective. Voters whose economic evaluations are most likely to be endogenous to vote choice show a weaker relationship between economic evaluations and their votes than the voters who appear to be more objective in their assessments of the election. Economic voting is broader and more prospective than previously accepted, and concerns about endogeneity in economic evaluations are overstated.
引用
收藏
页码:347 / 375
页数:29
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] Who Votes for the Future? Information, Expectations, and Endogeneity in Economic Voting
    Dean Lacy
    Dino P. Christenson
    Political Behavior, 2017, 39 : 347 - 375
  • [2] Who votes for new parties? Economic voting, political ideology and populist attitudes
    Marcos-Marne, Hugo
    Plaza-Colodro, Carolina
    Freyburg, Tina
    WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, 2020, 43 (01) : 1 - 21
  • [3] Information and Economic Voting
    Rogers, Jonathan
    Tyszler, Marcelo
    POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2018, 6 (04) : 753 - 770
  • [4] Economic voting and information
    Aidt, TS
    ELECTORAL STUDIES, 2000, 19 (2-3) : 349 - 362
  • [5] Who will vote quadratically? Voter turnout and votes cast under quadratic voting
    Kaplow, Louis
    Kominers, Scott Duke
    PUBLIC CHOICE, 2017, 172 (1-2) : 125 - 149
  • [6] The Economy and Voting Behavior in West Germany, 1977-2007: Who are the Economic Voters?
    Steiner, Nils
    Steinbrecher, Markus
    POLITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT, 2012, : 321 - +
  • [7] Looking to the future: Prospective economic voting in 2008 Presidential Elections
    Michelitch, Kristin
    Morales, Marco
    Owen, Andrew
    Tucker, Joshua A.
    ELECTORAL STUDIES, 2012, 31 (04) : 838 - 851
  • [8] Who votes for public environmental goods in California? Evidence from a spatial analysis of voting for environmental ballot measures
    Wu, Xiaoyu
    Cutter, Bowman
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2011, 70 (03) : 554 - 563
  • [9] Payment expectations for research participation among subjects who tell the truth, subjects who conceal information, and subjects who fabricate information
    Devine, Eric G.
    Knapp, Clifford M.
    Sarid-Segal, Ofra
    O'Keefe, Sean M.
    Wardell, Cale
    Baskett, Morgan
    Pecchia, Ashley
    Ferrell, Katie
    Ciraulo, Domenic A.
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 41 : 55 - 61