IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v20y2008i3p283-309.html

When `No' Means `Yes, But'

Author

Listed:
  • Achim Kemmerling

    (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen, PO Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany, a.kemmerling@jacobs-university.de)

Abstract

In situations where an electoral boycott is feasible, both voters and party leaders sometimes exhibit apparently irrational behavior. We argue that in some cases this can be explained by a strategic rationale. To exemplify this claim we use an empirical puzzle: the Polish accession referendum only passed the turnout threshold because of people who voted `no'. This is puzzling, since these people could easily have stayed at home without hurting the collective interest of their group. Conventional wisdom argues that the `no'-campaign fought an uphill battle and made tactical errors. In addition, voters were supposedly not aware of their strategic situation. We argue that some of these people did not oppose enlargement, but the terms of the negotiation process between the EU and Poland. Microeconometric evidence depicts the common characteristics of these moderately Eurosceptic voters. Moreover, a stylized game-theoretic model shows that Eurosceptic party leaders have behaved in an optimal way that produced benefits for these voters. We deduce a mixed equilibrium which fits the politicians' behavior best.

Suggested Citation

  • Achim Kemmerling, 2008. "When `No' Means `Yes, But'," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(3), pages 283-309, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:20:y:2008:i:3:p:283-309
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463108090134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463108090134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463108090134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hartmut Lenz & Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2007. "Public commitment strategies in intergovernmental negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 131-152, June.
    2. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    3. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1968. "A Theory of the Calculus of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 25-42, March.
    4. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration," MZES Working Papers 21, MZES.
    5. Aleks Szczerbiak, 2001. "Polish Public Opinion: Explaining Declining Support for EU Membership," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 105-122, March.
    6. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487, Enero-Abr.
    7. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    8. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1985. "Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(1), pages 62-78, March.
    9. Hug, Simon & König, Thomas, 2002. "In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 447-476, April.
    10. Jack Bielasiak, 2002. "Determinants of Public Opinion Differences on EU Accession in Poland," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1241-1266.
    11. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    12. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1968. "A Theory of the Calculus of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 25-42, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Tom LaGatta, 2017. "Group incentives and rational voting1," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 299-326, April.
    2. João Amaro de Matos & Pedro Barros, 2004. "Social Norms and the Paradox of Elections’ Turnout," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 239-255, October.
    3. Evren, Özgür, 2012. "Altruism and voting: A large-turnout result that does not rely on civic duty or cooperative behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2124-2157.
    4. Fosco, Constanza & Laruelle, Annick & Sánchez, Angel, 2009. "Turnout Intention and Social Networks," IKERLANAK info:eu-repo/grantAgreeme, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    5. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    6. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    7. Cameron Guage & Feng Fu, 2021. "Asymmetric Partisan Voter Turnout Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 738-758, December.
    8. Sebastian Garmann, 2020. "Political efficacy and the persistence of turnout shocks," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 411-429, November.
    9. Elena Panova, 2011. "A Passion for Democracy," CIRANO Working Papers 2011s-47, CIRANO.
    10. Alberto Grillo, 2017. "Risk aversion and bandwagon effect in the pivotal voter model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 465-482, September.
    11. Kamada, Yuichiro & Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "The equivalence between costly and probabilistic voting models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 179-185.
    12. Serge Blondel & Louis Lévy-garboua, 2011. "Can non-expected utility theories explain the paradox of not voting?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3158-3168.
    13. François Facchini & Louis Jaeck, 2021. "Populism and the rational choice model: The case of the French National Front," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(2), pages 196-228, May.
    14. Abdul Noury, 2004. "Abstention in Daylight: Strategic Calculus of Voting in the European Parliament," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 179-211, October.
    15. Sanz, Carlos, 2017. "The Effect of Electoral Systems on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 689-710, October.
    16. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & João V. Ferreira, 2020. "Conflicted voters: A spatial voting model with multiple party identifications," Post-Print hal-02909682, HAL.
    17. Tsuyoshi Hatori & Kiyoshi Kobayashi, 2012. "Knowledge, Political Innovation and Referendum," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Roger R. Stough (ed.), The Regional Economics of Knowledge and Talent, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Thomas Schwartz, 1987. "Your vote counts on account of the way it is counted: An institutional solution to the paradox of not voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 101-121, January.
    19. Clemens Puppe & Jana Rollmann, 2023. "Participation in Voting Over Budget Allocations: A Field Experiment," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer (ed.), Advances in Collective Decision Making, pages 355-393, Springer.
    20. William H. Kaempfer & Anton D. Lowenberg, 1993. "A Threshold Model of Electoral Policy and Voter Turnout," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 107-126, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:20:y:2008:i:3:p:283-309. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.