IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v40y2010i02p399-418_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sophisticated Voting on Competing Ballot Measures: Spatial Theory and Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Hugh-Jones, David

Abstract

Are voters sophisticated? Rational choice theories of voting assume they are. Students of voting behaviour are more doubtful. This article examines voting in a particularly demanding setting: direct democratic elections in which two competing proposals are on the ballot. It develops a spatial model of voting and proposal qualification with competing proposals. If voters are naïve, then competing proposals can be used to block the direct democratic route to change, but, if voters vote strategically, competing proposals can bring outcomes closer to the median voter. Voting intention data from California polls provide evidence that some votes are cast strategically even in these demanding circumstances. However, the level of strategic voting appears to be affected by the nature of the election campaign.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugh-Jones, David, 2010. "Sophisticated Voting on Competing Ballot Measures: Spatial Theory and Evidence," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 399-418, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:40:y:2010:i:02:p:399-418_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123410000025/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:bjposi:v:40:y:2010:i:02:p:399-418_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/jps .

    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.