Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:34:34.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Sophisticated” Voting in the 1988 Presidential Primaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Paul R. Abramson ,
John H. Aldrich ,
Phil Paolino  and
David W. Rohde
Paul R. Abramson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
John H. Aldrich
Affiliation:
Duke University
Phil Paolino
Affiliation:
Duke University
David W. Rohde
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voters in multicandidate contests may confront circumstances under which it is in their interest to vote for a second- or even lower-ranked candidate. The U.S. electoral system, typically offering a choice between only two major contenders, rarely presents opportunities for this “sophisticated” voting. In presidential primaries, however, many plausible candidates may compete. We investigate the presence of sophisticated voting in the 1988 presidential primaries, using data from the National Election Study's Super Tuesday survey. We examine patterns of voting types based on ordinal measures of preferences among candidates and assessments of their chances of winning their party's nomination and estimate several models of choice, testing the multicandidate calculus of voting. Among both Republicans and Democrats, respondents' choices were consistent with the calculus of voting and thus with sophisticated voting.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 55 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Paolino, Phil, and Rohde, David W.. 1990. “‘Sophisticated’ Voting in the 1988 Presidential Primaries.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1983. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1991. Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1980a. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226922447.001.0001Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1980b. “A Dynamic Model of Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 74:651–69.10.2307/1958148Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1991. “Turnout and Rational Choice.” Duke University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1970. Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Collier–Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1985. “Expectations and Preferences in Presidential Nominating Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 79:804–15.10.2307/1956845Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691221908Google Scholar
Black, Jerome H. 1978. “The Multicandidate Calculus of Voting: Application to Canadian Federal Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 22:609–38.10.2307/2110464Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Johnston, Richard. 1987. “What's the Primary Message: Horse Race of Issue Journalism?” In Media and Momentum, ed. Orren, Gary R. and Polsby, Nelson W.. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E. 1978. “Strategic Voting in Britian.” American Journal of Political Science 22:639–55.10.2307/2110465Google Scholar
Center for Political Studies. 1988. American National Elections Study, 1988: The Presidential Nomination Process (The Super Tuesday Study). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1974. “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” American Political Science Review 68:525–36.10.2307/1959502Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1975. “Closeness Counts Only in Horseshoes and Dancing.” American Political Science Review 69:920–25.10.2307/1958405Google Scholar
Keeter, Scott, and Zukin, Cliff. 1983. Uninformed Choice: The Failure of the New Presidential Nominating System. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1972. “A General Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” In Mathematical Applications in Political Science, vol. 6, ed. Herndon, James F. and Bernd, Joseph L.. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Paolino, Phil. 1989. “A Reciprocal Model of Candidate Evaluation during the 1988 Presidential Primaries.” Duke University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62:25–43.10.2307/1953324Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.