One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout
A common feature of many models of voter turnout is that increasing the perceived closeness of the election should increase voter turnout. However, cleanly testing this prediction is difficult and little is known about voter beliefs regarding the closeness of a given race. We conduct a field experiment during the 2010 US gubernatorial elections where we elicit voter beliefs about the closeness of the election before and after showing different polls, which, depending on treatment, indicate a close race or a not close race. We find that subjects update their beliefs in response to new information, but systematically overestimate the probability of a very close election. However, the decision to vote is unaffected by beliefs about the closeness of the election. A follow-up field experiment, conducted during the 2014 gubernatorial elections but at much larger scale, also points to little relationship between poll information about closeness and voter turnout.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2017|
|Note:||LS PE POL|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- Kendall, Chad & Nannicini, Tommaso & Trebbi, Francesco, 2013. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," IZA Discussion Papers 7340, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2013. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," Working Papers 486, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2013. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," NBER Working Papers 18986, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Basit Zafar, 2010.
"Can subjective expectations data be used in choice models? Evidence on cognitive biases,"
454, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Basit Zafar, 2011. "Can subjective expectations data be used in choice models? evidence on cognitive biases," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 520-544, 04.
- Stephen Hansen & Thomas Palfrey & Howard Rosenthal, 1987.
"The Downsian model of electoral participation: Formal theory and empirical analysis of the constituency size effect,"
Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 15-33, January.
- Stephen Hansen & Thomas R Palfrey & Howard Rosenthal, 2010. "The Downsian Model of Electoral Participation: Formal Theory and Empirical Analysis of the Constituency Size Effect," Levine's Working Paper Archive 101, David K. Levine.
- Jean-Robert Tyran, 2002.
"Voting when Money and Morals Conflict - An Experimental Test of Expressive Voting,"
University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002
2002-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
- Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2004. "Voting when money and morals conflict: an experimental test of expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1645-1664, July.
- Emir Kamenica & Louisa Egan Brad, 2014. "Voters, dictators, and peons: expressive voting and pivotality," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 159-176, April.
- 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.
- Harbaugh, W T, 1996.
"If People Vote Because They Like to, Then Why Do So Many of Them Lie?,"
Springer, vol. 89(1-2), pages 63-76, October.
- William T. Harbaugh, 1996. "If people vote because they like to, then why do so many of them lie?," Public Economics 9606002, EconWPA.
- Mulligan, Casey B & Hunter, Charles G, 2003.
"The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote,"
Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 31-54, July.
- Casey B. Mulligan & Charles G. Hunter, 2001. "The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote," NBER Working Papers 8590, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Casey B. Mulligan & Charles G. Hunter, 2000. "The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote," Working Papers 0025, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.
- Jens Großer & Arthur Schram, 2007. "Public Opinion Polls, Voter Turnout, and Welfare: An Experimental Study," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 014, University of Siena.
- Thomas Fujiwara & Kyle Meng & Tom Vogl, 2016. "Habit Formation in Voting: Evidence from Rainy Elections," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 160-188, October.
- Matsusaka, J.C., 1991.
"Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot Propositions,"
91-29, Southern California - School of Business Administration.
- Matsusaka, John G, 1993. "Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot Propositions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 313-334, August.
- Ronny Razin, 2003. "Signaling and Election Motivations in a Voting Model with Common Values and Responsive Candidates," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1083-1119, 07.
- Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2005.
"Uncertainty and resistance to reform in laboratory participation games,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 708-737, September.
- Vai-Lam Mui & Timothy N. Cason, 2004. "Uncertainty and Resistance to Reform in Laboratory Participation Games," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 1, Econometric Society.
- Coate, Stephen & Conlin, Michael & Moro, Andrea, 2008. "The performance of pivotal-voter models in small-scale elections: Evidence from Texas liquor referenda," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 582-596, April.
- Blais, Andre & Young, Robert, 1999. "Why Do People Vote? An Experiment in Rationality," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 99(1-2), pages 39-55, April.
- Moses Shayo & Alon Harel, 2010.
Discussion Paper Series
dp545, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
- Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
- Melis Kartal, 2015. "Laboratory elections with endogenous turnout: proportional representation versus majoritarian rule," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 366-384, September.
- Stephen Coate & Michael Conlin, 2004. "A Group Rule–Utilitarian Approach to Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1476-1504, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23071. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.