IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v96y2015i5p1196-1213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presidential Campaign Spending and Correct Voting from 2000 to 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew L. Bergbower
  • Scott D. McClurg
  • Thomas Holbrook

Abstract

type="main"> This study examines whether presidential campaigns help voters make informed choices on Election Day, or whether unique campaign contexts can actually hinder quality votes. We explore this question by relating the allocation of resources by presidential campaigns to a measure of correct voting (Lau and Redlawsk, 1997). We expect that when campaign messages become overwhelmingly one sided, the number of incorrect votes increases and test this through an assessment of campaign data and responses to the 2000, 2004, and 2008 American National Election Studies. Our results reveal that lopsided campaign contexts create an opportunity for campaigns to pick up votes that would otherwise go to the opposing candidate. This research underscores the normative value of competitive political campaigns as it relates to voters’ exposure to political information. Our findings contribute to debates on campaign strategy, information environments, and the effect of campaigns on voter decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew L. Bergbower & Scott D. McClurg & Thomas Holbrook, 2015. "Presidential Campaign Spending and Correct Voting from 2000 to 2008," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1196-1213, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:5:p:1196-1213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ssqu.12199
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaw, Daron R., 1999. "The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 345-361, June.
    2. Althaus, Scott L., 1998. "Information Effects in Collective Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 545-558, September.
    3. Wattenberg, Martin P. & Brians, Craig Leonard, 1999. "Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 891-899, December.
    4. Page, Benjamin I. & Brody, Richard A., 1972. "Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 979-995, September.
    5. Gilens, Martin, 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 379-396, June.
    6. Lodge, Milton & McGraw, Kathleen M. & Stroh, Patrick, 1989. "An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 399-419, June.
    7. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    8. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    9. Lau, Richard R. & Redlawsk, David P., 1997. "Voting Correctly," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 585-598, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    2. Reed, Markum, 2015. "Social network influence on consistent choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 28-38.
    3. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Katharina Werner, 2019. "The Role of Information for Public Preferences on Education – Evidence from Representative Survey Experiments," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 82.
    5. Brendan Nyhan, 2011. "The limited effects of testimony on political persuasion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 283-312, September.
    6. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    7. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    8. Jo Thori Lind & Dominic Rohner, 2017. "Knowledge is Power: A Theory of Information, Income and Welfare Spending," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 611-646, October.
    9. Chun-Fang Chiang & Jason M. Kuo & Megumi Naoi & Jin-Tan Liu, 2020. "What Do Voters Learn from Foreign News? Emulation, Backlash, and Public Support for Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 27497, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    11. Kim, Jaehoon & Fey, Mark, 2007. "The swing voter's curse with adversarial preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 236-252, July.
    12. Nicholas Clark & Timothy Hellwig, 2012. "Information effects and mass support for EU policy control," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 535-557, December.
    13. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    14. Philipp Lergetporer & Guido Schwerdt & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2016. "Information and Preferences for Public Spending: Evidence from Representative Survey Experiments," CESifo Working Paper Series 5938, CESifo.
    15. Kevin Arceneaux & Robin Kolodny, 2009. "Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 755-770, October.
    16. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    17. Patrick Sturgis, 2003. "Knowledge and Collective Preferences," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 31(4), pages 453-485, May.
    18. Sara B Hobolt & Sebastian Adrian Popa & Wouter Van der Brug & Hermann Schmitt, 2022. "The Brexit deterrent? How member state exit shapes public support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 100-119, March.
    19. Alessandro Nai, 2015. "The Maze and the Mirror: Voting Correctly in Direct Democracy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 465-486, June.
    20. Nordin, Mattias, 2015. "Local Television, Citizen Knowledge and Political Accountability: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," Working Paper Series 2015:5, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:5:p:1196-1213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.