Coordination and Policy Moderation at Midterm

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
WALTER R. MEBANE ◽  
JASJEET S. SEKHON
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Rational Expectations ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Stochastic Choice ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Ideal Points ◽  
Election Studies

Eligible voters have been coordinating their turnout and vote decisions for the House of Representatives in midterm elections. Coordination is a noncooperative rational expectations equilibrium. Stochastic choice models estimated using individual-level data from U.S. National Election Studies surveys of the years 1978–1998 support the coordinating model and reject a nonstrategic model. The coordinating model shows that many voters have incentives to change their votes between the presidential year and midterm after learning the outcome of the presidential election. But this mechanism alone does not explain the size of midterm cycles. The largest source of loss of support for the president's party at midterm is a regular pattern in which the median differences between the voters' ideal points and the parties' policy positions have become less favorable for the president's party than they were at the time of the presidential election (nonvoters show the same pattern). The interelection changes are not consistent with the theory of surge and decline.

scholarly journals Coordination, Moderation, and Institutional Balancing in American Presidential and House Elections

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter R. Mebane
Keyword(s):  
Private Information ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Rational Expectations ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Stochastic Choice ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Point Condition ◽  
The Common ◽  
Moderate Policy

Voters have been coordinating their choices for president and House of Representatives in recent presidential election years, with each voter using a strategy that features policy moderation. Coordination is defined as a noncooperative rational expectations equilibrium among voters, in which each voter has both common knowledge and private information about the election outcome. Stochastic choice models estimated using individual-level NES data from 1976–96 support coordination versus a model in which voters act nonstrategically to moderate policy. The empirical coordinating model satisfies the fixed-point condition that defines the common knowledge expectation voters have about the outcome in the theoretical equilibrium. The proportion of voters who split their ticket in order to balance the House with the president has been small but large enough to affect election outcomes. Moderation has usually been based on voters' expectations that the president will be at least an equal of the House in determining postelection policy.

The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990-96

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Lacey
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ballot Initiatives ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Election Studies

Do salient ballot initiatives stimulate voting? Recent studies have shown that initiatives increase voter turnout, but some methodological concerns still linger. These studies have either relied solely on aggregate data to make inferences about individual-level behavior or used a flawed measure of initiative salience. Using individual-level data from the National Election Studies, I find that ballot question salience indeed stimulated voting in the midterm elections of 1990 and 1994. In an election with moderately salient ballot questions, a person's likelihood of voting can increase by as much as 30 percent in a midterm election. On the other hand, consistent with most prior research, I find no statistically significant relationship between ballot question salience and voting in presidential elections.

When Marriage Gets Hard: Intra-Coalition Conflict and Electoral Accountability

2021 ◽  
pp. 001041402110243
Author(s):  
Carolina Plescia ◽  
Sylvia Kritzinger
Keyword(s):  
Economic Performance ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Electoral Accountability ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Coalition Governments ◽  
Level Data ◽  
European Election ◽  
Election Studies

Combining individual-level with event-level data across 25 European countries and three sets of European Election Studies, this study examines the effect of conflict between parties in coalition government on electoral accountability and responsibility attribution. We find that conflict increases punishment for poor economic performance precisely because it helps clarify to voters parties’ actions and responsibilities while in office. The results indicate that under conditions of conflict, the punishment is equal for all coalition partners when they share responsibility for poor economic performance. When there is no conflict within a government, the effect of poor economic evaluations on vote choice is rather low, with slightly more punishment targeted to the prime minister’s party. These findings have important implications for our understanding of electoral accountability and political representation in coalition governments.

Donald Trump, Nationalization, and the 2018 Midterm Elections

The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Carson ◽  
Aaron A. Hitefield
Keyword(s):  
National Economy ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Primary Elections ◽  
Midterm Results ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
The Us

Abstract The 2018 midterm elections resulted in record levels of turnout, campaign funding, and the representation of women and minorities in Congress. Moreover, Democrats regained control of the US House of Representatives while Republicans shored up their minimal majority in the Senate. What made such a historic outcome possible? This article examines the candidates, expectations, outcomes, and implications of the 2018 midterm elections. In doing so, it offers an analysis into the primary elections, suggesting that the 2018 midterm results in the House were largely a result of successful nominations of quality Democratic candidates who were able to capitalize on the unpopularity of President Donald Trump despite an otherwise strong national economy. It closes with an in-depth analysis into the implications of the 2018 midterm election on both the incoming 116th Congress as well as the upcoming 2020 Presidential election.

The Impact of State Television on Voter Turnout

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 257-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rune J. Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
The United States ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
New Tv ◽  
Election Studies ◽  
The Impact

In an influential study, Matthew Gentzkow found that the introduction of TV in the United States caused a major drop in voter turnout. In contrast, the current analysis shows that public broadcasting TV can increase political participation. Detailed data on the rollout of television in Norway in the 1960s and 1970s are combined with municipality-level data on voter turnout over a period of four decades. The date of access to TV signals was mostly a side effect of geography, a feature that is used to identify causal effects. Additional analyses exploit individual-level panel data from three successive election studies. The new TV medium instantly became a major source of political information. It triggered political interest and caused a modest, but statistically significant, increase in voter turnout.

The End of Midterm Decline?

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-164
Author(s):  
Lex Renda
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
District Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Average Loss ◽  
Open Seat ◽  
The U.S

Variations in the loss of seats in the House of Representatives by the president's party in midterm elections between 1854 and 1998 are analyzed from a historical perspective. Whereas in the latter three-fourths of the nineteenth century the president's party lost, on average, 22% of its share of House seats, in the twentieth century the average loss was 13%. Using district-level data, the author attributes the problematization of “midterm decline” to the growing power of incumbency (a consequence of the development of the Australian ballot), the decline in the number of partisanly competitive districts in open-seat elections, and the limitation, since 1912, of the size of the U.S. House of Representatives.

An “Authoritarian Spring?” Authoritarianism and the 2018 Midterm Elections

The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-545
Author(s):  
Anne M. Cizmar ◽  
John McTague
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Campaign Messages ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Election Studies

Abstract This paper examines the role of authoritarianism in the 2018 US congressional elections. In particular, we assess whether the issues that have historically been central to the authoritarian divide in the American electorate were salient in the campaigns of several important Senate races. We demonstrate that authoritarian attitudes played a consistent, significant role on presidential vote choice, party identification, and numerous policy areas in the 2016 presidential election using data from the American National Election Studies. Using case studies of six Senate races in the 2018 midterm elections, we find that authoritarianism was more muted than in 2016, and that the role of authoritarianism varied considerably depending upon the race. States with stronger Trump support in 2016 featured authoritarianism more heavily than states with less Trump support in 2016, but authoritarianism overall was not as prominent in 2018 as in 2016. Overall, Senate candidates relied on traditional campaign messages related to candidate qualifications, personal attacks, the economy, and other messages less central to authoritarianism.

Smartphones and Their Increased Importance in U.S. Presidential Elections

2019 ◽  
pp. 1203-1223
Author(s):  
Ramona Sue McNeal ◽  
Mary Schmeida ◽  
Lisa Dotterweich Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Social Networking Sites ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Political Discussion ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Election Studies ◽  
The Relationship

Early researchers had predicted that the Internet might help to encourage political participation through its ability to make political information more accessible. Unfortunately, disparities in Internet access made it unlikely that the Internet would have much of an impact on voter turnout. Telecommunication technology has evolved and among these new advances is smartphones, which help to increase Internet access. The purpose of this chapter is to examine this argument by exploring the relationship between smartphone ownership and voting. This topic is explored using multivariate regression analysis and individual level data from the 2012 American National Election Studies. Findings suggest that smartphones are helping to increase voter turnout through their ability to facilitate other online activities such as visiting candidate websites and taking part in political discussion through social networking sites.

Smartphones and their Increased Importance in U.S. Presidential Elections

2017 ◽  
pp. 283-303
Author(s):  
Ramona Sue McNeal ◽  
Mary Schmeida ◽  
Lisa Dotterweich Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Social Networking Sites ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Political Discussion ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Election Studies ◽  
The Relationship

Early researchers had predicted that the Internet might help to encourage political participation through its ability to make political information more accessible. Unfortunately, disparities in Internet access made it unlikely that the Internet would have much of an impact on voter turnout. Telecommunication technology has evolved and among these new advances is smartphones, which help to increase Internet access. The purpose of this chapter is to examine this argument by exploring the relationship between smartphone ownership and voting. This topic is explored using multivariate regression analysis and individual level data from the 2012 American National Election Studies. Findings suggest that smartphones are helping to increase voter turnout through their ability to facilitate other online activities such as visiting candidate websites and taking part in political discussion through social networking sites.

scholarly journals Employment, Wages, and Voter Turnout

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerwin Kofi Charles ◽  
Melvin Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Panel Data ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Knowledge ◽  
County Level ◽  
Labor Market Conditions ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Media Usage ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
Level Data

Using county-level data across several decades, and various OLS and TSLS models, we find that higher local wages and employment lower turnout in elections for governor, senator, US Congress and state House of Representatives, but have no effect on presidential turnout. We also find that the share of people voting in one election but not in another on the same ballot increases as local labor market conditions improve. We argue that these results are most consistent with information-based models of voting, and use individual level panel data to show that increased employment lowers media usage and political knowledge. (JEL D72, D83, J22, J31, R23)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document