IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v91y1997i03p585-598_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voting Correctly

Author

Listed:
  • Lau, Richard R.
  • Redlawsk, David P.

Abstract

The average voter falls far short of the prescriptions of classic democratic theory in terms of interest, knowledge, and participation in politics. We suggest a more realistic standard: Citizens fulfill their democratic duties if, most of the time, they vote “correctly.” Relying on an operationalization of correct voting based on fully informed interests, we present experimental data showing that, most of the time, people do indeed manage to vote correctly. We also show that voters' determinations of their correct vote choices can be predicted reasonably well with widely available survey data. We illustrate how this measure can be used to determine the proportion of the electorate voting correctly, which we calculate at about 75% for the five American presidential elections between 1972 and 1988. With a standard for correct vote decisions, political science can turn to exploring the factors that make it more likely that people will vote correctly.

Suggested Citation

  • Lau, Richard R. & Redlawsk, David P., 1997. "Voting Correctly," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 585-598, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:91:y:1997:i:03:p:585-598_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400210988/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. Granić, Đura-Georg, 2017. "The problem of the divided majority: Preference aggregation under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 21-38.
    2. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 2008. "Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 227-236.
    3. 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.
    4. Monika Bartkowska & Guido Tiemann, 2015. "The Impact of Economic Perceptions on Voting Behaviour in European Parliamentary Elections," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 201-217, March.
    5. Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "Heuristic Voting Under the Alternative Vote: The Efficiency of “Sour Grapes” Behavior," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 57-76, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Meffert, Michael F. & Gschwend, Thomas, 2007. "Polls, coalitions signals, and strategic voting : an experimental investigation of perceptions and effects," Papers 07-63, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    8. Reed, Markum, 2015. "Social network influence on consistent choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 28-38.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    12. 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.

    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:91:y:1997:i:03:p:585-598_21. 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.