IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v110y2016i04p832-844_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class

Author

Listed:
  • CARNES, NICHOLAS
  • LUPU, NOAM

Abstract

In most democracies, lawmakers tend to be vastly better off than the citizens who elect them. Is that because voters prefer more affluent politicians over leaders from working-class backgrounds? In this article, we report the results of candidate choice experiments embedded in surveys in Britain, the United States, and Argentina. Using conjoint designs, we asked voters in these different contexts to choose between two hypothetical candidates, randomly varying several of the candidates’ personal characteristics, including whether they had worked in blue-collar or white-collar jobs. Contrary to the idea that voters prefer affluent politicians, the voters in our experiments viewed hypothetical candidates from the working class as equally qualified, more relatable, and just as likely to get their votes. Voters do not seem to be behind the shortage of working-class politicians. To the contrary, British, American, and Argentine voters seem perfectly willing to cast their ballots for working-class candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Carnes, Nicholas & Lupu, Noam, 2016. "Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 832-844, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:110:y:2016:i:04:p:832-844_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055416000551/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    2. Karen O. Caballero Armendariz & Ben Farrer & Monica Martinez, 2020. "Badge of Courage or Sign of Criminality? Experimental Evidence for How Voters Respond to Candidates Who Were Arrested at a Protest," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2203-2219, October.
    3. Jan Auerbach, 2018. "Office-Holding Premia and Representative Democracy," Discussion Papers 1802, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    4. Miriam Sorace, 2018. "The European Union democratic deficit: Substantive representation in the European Parliament at the input stage," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 3-24, March.
    5. Lucie Coufalová & Štěpán Mikula & Michal Ševčík, 2023. "Homophily in voting behavior: Evidence from preferential voting," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 281-300, May.
    6. Charles McCLEAN & ONO Yoshikuni, 2020. "How Do Voters Evaluate the Age of Politicians?," Discussion papers 20069, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & William Kimball & Thomas Kochan, 2022. "What Forms of Representation Do American Workers Want? Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 267-294, March.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:110:y:2016:i:04:p:832-844_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.