Adding Ideology to the Equation: New Predictions for Election Results under Compulsory Voting
AbstractThis paper provides new predictions for compulsory elections, taking into consideration the differences in ideological views between compulsory and voluntary voters. Having explored Brazil's dual voting system, I predict changes in Americans' preferences and estimate a voting model applied to US senatorial elections. I find that, if the current voting population had ideological preferences of a compulsory electorate, Democrats would gain 8.7 percentage points in their vote shares and win 68% of the elections. Moreover, candidates that are voted for less would be the ones that gain more votes under compulsory elections, while this system would be most detrimental for highly voted-for candidates. Another consequence includes the candidates' reaction while converging in the ideological spectrum.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. in its series University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series with number 044.
Date of creation: Apr 2013
Date of revision:
Postal: Helen Chapman, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-27 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2013-04-27 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-FOR-2013-04-27 (Forecasting)
- NEP-POL-2013-04-27 (Positive Political Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sayantan Ghosal & Ben Lockwood, 2009. "Costly voting when both information and preferences differ: is turnout too high or too low?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 25-50, June.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1994.
"Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information,"
1117, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1029-1058, September.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections With Private Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1560, David K. Levine.
- Kenneth Train, 2003.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Online economics textbooks,
SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
- Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135.
- Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 2011.
"Overcoming Ideological Bias in Elections,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(2), pages 183 - 211.
- Mullainathan, Sendhil & Washington, Ebonya, 2007.
"Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance Voting,"
14, Yale University, Department of Economics.
- Ebonya Washington & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2009. "Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Political Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-111, January.
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Ebonya Washington, 2006. "Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Voting," NBER Working Papers 11910, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alasdair Brown).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.