Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:10:22.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter Decision-Making with Polarized Choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2016

Jon C. Rogowski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1950, members of the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties argued that voters could exercise greater control over government if the two major political parties adopted clear and ideologically distinct policy platforms. In 2015, partisan polarization is a defining feature of American politics and extreme parties have maintained support elsewhere. This article investigates voter decision-making with ideologically divergent electoral choices and argues that ideological conflict reduces citizens’ responsiveness to candidates’ ideological locations by increasing the role of motivated reasoning in political decision-making. Results from two observational studies and a survey experiment support this account, and the findings are robust across a range of models. These results have important implications for accountability and democratic decision-making in an age of partisan polarization.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis (email:jrogowski@wustl.edu). Project Vote Smart, the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, and Boris Shor provided data used for a portion of this project. The experimental study was generously funded by the Time-Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), NSF Grant 0818839, Jeremy Freese and James Druckman, Principal Investigators. The author is grateful to Betsy Sinclair, the TESS PIs, and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on the survey experiment. He also thanks Jim Adams, Walt Stone, Margit Tavits, participants in the American politics seminar at UC-Davis, four anonymous reviewers, and the Editor of this Journal for thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions. Replication data available at : https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS. A supplementary online appendix available at: http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000630

References

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, James, Bishin, Benjamin, and Dow, Jay. 2004. Representation in Congressional Campaigns: Evidence for Directional/Discounting Effects in U.S. Senate Elections. Journal of Politics 66:348–373.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2004. Party System Compactness: Measurement and Consequences. Political Analysis 12:46–62.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. American Political Science Review 44:1–96.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Snyder, James M., and Stewart, Charles. 2001. Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45:136–159.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2002. Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior 24:117–150.Google Scholar
Buttice, Matthew, and Stone, Walter. 2012. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 74:870–887.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael, and Leiter, Debra. 2014. Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 47:171–202.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Doug. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Voting: A Unified Approach. American Political Science Review 98:355–370.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1982. Projection and the Perceptions of Candidates’ Issue Positions. Western Political Quarterly 35:228–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review 107:57–79.Google Scholar
Ensley, Michael J. 2007. Candidate Divergence, Ideology, and Vote Choice in U.S. Senate Elections. American Politics Research 35:103–122.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, Tavits, Margit, and Homola, Jonathan. 2014. Voter Polarization, Strength of Partisanship, and Support for Extremist Parties. Comparative Political Studies 47:1558–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2010. Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments. American Journal of Political Science 54:153–173.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., and Washington, Ebonya. 2010. Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review 104:720–744.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul, Federico, Christopher M., and Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2009. Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression. American Journal of Political Science 53:805–820.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1985. The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting. Journal of Politics 47:230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Brian F. 2015. Bully Partisan or Partisan Bully? Partisanship, Elite Polarization, and U.S. Presidential Communication. Social Science Quarterly (forthcoming). DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12219.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization. American Political Science Review 95:619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Patricia A., and Hill, Kim Quaile. 1980. The Prospects for Issue-Voting in Contemporary Congressional Elections: An Assessment of Citizen Awareness and Representation. American Politics Research 8:425–448.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76:405–431.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 103:59–81.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan Bias, Political Information, and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics 72:327–340.Google Scholar
Joesten, Danielle A., and Stone, Walter J.. 2014. Reassessing Proximity Voting: Expertise, Party, and Choice in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 76:740–753.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2008. The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting. Electoral Studies 27:687–698.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2002. Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46:786–800.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Londregan, John, and Romer, Thomas. 1993. Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote. Pp. 355–377, in Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, edited by William A., Barnett, Melvin J., Hinich, Norman and Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2013. Party Brands and Partisanship: Theory with Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science 57:49–64.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2012. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 83:93–121.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C. 2014. Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 58:479–494.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C., and Sutherland, Joseph L.. Forthcoming. How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization. Political Behavior. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures. American Political Science Review 105:530–551.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and Rogowski, Jon C.. 2015. Ideology and the US Congressional Vote. Working paper. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2650028.Google Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. 2013. Proximity Voting in the 2010 U.S. House Elections. Electoral Studies 32:708–717.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. Candidate Valence and Ideological Placement in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 54:371–388.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice. American Political Science Review 102:303–318.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1986. Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 80:567–588.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Rogowski Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FAB3FE
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Rogowski supplementary material

Appendix

Download Rogowski supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 384.7 KB