IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/easeco/v45y2019i3d10.1057_s41302-018-00131-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting

Author

Listed:
  • Isaac Duerr

    (University of Florida)

  • Thomas Knight

    () (University of Florida)

  • Lindsey Woodworth

    (University of South Carolina)

Abstract

We examine the impact of providing voters with additional information related to candidates’ views on particular issues on voters’ tendencies to cross the party line. When we randomize the provision of this information in an experimental setting where participants are undergraduate students at a large public university, we find that “treatment” increases the likelihood that a voter will cross the party line by an average of 4 percentage points. This corresponds to an approximately 20% decrease in partisan voting. Surprisingly, treatment effects are not more pronounced among voters whose opposing party’s candidate is the relatively moderate candidate in the election. They are, however, more pronounced among Democrat voters. These findings suggest that transparency, with respect to candidates’ views on particular issues, has a corroding effect on partisanship among a subset of voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Isaac Duerr & Thomas Knight & Lindsey Woodworth, 2019. "Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 331-349, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:easeco:v:45:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1057_s41302-018-00131-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41302-018-00131-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41302-018-00131-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewis, Jeffrey B. & King, Gary, 1999. "No Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity Voting," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 21-33, January.
    2. Merrill, Samuel, III, 1993. "Voting Behavior under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 739-756, December.
    3. Harrington, Joseph Jr. & Hess, Gregory D., 1996. "A Spatial Theory of Positive and Negative Campaigning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 209-229, December.
    4. Hinich, Melvin J., 1977. "Equilibrium in spatial voting: The median voter result is an artifact," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 208-219, December.
    5. Gerber, Alan S. & Gimpel, James G. & Green, Donald P. & Shaw, Daron R., 2011. "How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 135-150, February.
    6. James Adams & Lawrence Ezrow & Zeynep Somer‐Topcu, 2011. "Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements During Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 370-382, April.
    7. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    8. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    9. Westholm, Anders, 1997. "Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 865-883, December.
    10. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Iyengar, Shanto & Simon, Adam & Valentino, Nicholas, 1994. "Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(4), pages 829-838, December.
    11. Thomas Knight & Fan Li & Lindsey Woodworth, 2017. "It’s My Party and I’ll Vote How I Want to: Experimental Evidence of Directional Voting in Two-Candidate Elections," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 660-676, September.
    12. Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 368-377, June.
    13. Dow, Jay K, 1998. "Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Choice in Recent US Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 96(3-4), pages 259-270, September.
    14. Cho, Sungdai & Endersby, James W, 2003. "Issues, the Spatial Theory of Voting, and British General Elections: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 275-293, March.
    15. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    16. Rabinowitz, George & Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, 1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 93-121, March.
    17. Polborn, Mattias K. & David T., Yi, 2006. "Informative Positive and Negative Campaigning," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 1(4), pages 351-371, October.
    18. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    19. Tomz, Michael & Van Houweling, Robert P., 2008. "Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 303-318, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Voting; Political campaigning; Information; Public Choice;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:pal:easeco:v:45:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1057_s41302-018-00131-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.