IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v45y2015i02p329-351_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Caucuses? An Experimental Approach to Institutional Design and Electoral Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Karpowitz, Christopher F.
  • Pope, Jeremy C.

Abstract

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the question of mass participation in primaries and caucuses became unusually salient, with a close Democratic race calling special attention to these often overlooked procedural elements of America's democratic system. This study adds a new element to scholarship on institutional design and citizen participation by way of a survey-based experiment conducted in the midst of the 2008 campaign. The results show that institutional choices are not neutral. Nominating candidates through caucuses rather than primaries not only reduces the number of participants, but also significantly affects the ideological composition of the electorate. Caucuses produce a more ideologically consistent electorate than do primaries, because policy centrists appear to avoid caucuses. This experimental finding is strongly buttressed by the observational data on Obama and Clinton voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Karpowitz, Christopher F. & Pope, Jeremy C., 2015. "Who Caucuses? An Experimental Approach to Institutional Design and Electoral Participation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 329-351, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:45:y:2015:i:02:p:329-351_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123413000288/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. Joseph A. Coll, 2021. "Demographic Disparities Using Ranked-Choice Voting? Ranking Difficulty, Under-Voting, and the 2020 Democratic Primary," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 293-305.

    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:45:y:2015:i:02:p:329-351_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.