Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-nrv4r Total loading time: 0.397 Render date: 2021-07-24T12:08:47.717Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

It’s Not Just What You Have, but Who You Know: Networks, Social Proximity to Elites, and Voting in State and Local Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

MATTHEW T. PIETRYKA
Affiliation:
Florida State University
DONALD A. DEBATS
Affiliation:
Flinders University
Corresponding

Abstract

Individual-level studies of electoral turnout and vote choice have focused largely on personal attributes as explanatory variables. We argue that scholars should also consider the social network in which individuals are embedded, which may influence voting through variation in individuals’ social proximity to elites. Our analysis rests on newly discovered historical records revealing the individual votes of all electors in the 1859 statewide elections in Alexandria, Virginia and the 1874 municipal elections in Newport, Kentucky, paired with archival work identifying the social relations of the cities’ populations. We also replicate our core findings using survey data from a modern municipal election. We show that individuals more socially proximate to elites turn out at a higher rate and individuals more socially proximate to a given political party’s elites vote disproportionately for that party. These results suggest an overlooked social component of voting and provide a rare nineteenth-century test of modern voting theories.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

We thank Sarah John, Wayne Lawrence, Sue Hesch, Anne Harrington, Beth Prior, and Leonie Hardcastle for invaluable help in creating the nineteenth century databases. We thank Daniel Maliniak, Patrick Miller, and Ron Rapoport for sharing their survey and supplemental data from the 2010 Williamsburg election. For thoughtful suggestions, we thank Quintin Beazer, Bill Berry, Bill Claggett, Erik Engstrom, Brad Gomez, Bob Huckfeldt, Dennis Langley, Oana Lup, Jessica Parsons, John Barry Ryan, Editor Martinez-Ebers, and four anonymous reviewers. This research also benefited from feedback during presentations at Florida State University, the 2015 Political Networks Conference, and the 2014 Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting. This research was funded by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, Flinders University, and the Australian Research Council.

References

Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, Robert, Mayer, Alexander K., and Ryan, John Barry. 2013. “Expertise and Bias in Political Communication Networks.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 357–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, Robert, and Ryan, John Barry. 2014. Experts, Activists, and Interdependent Citizens: Are Electorates Self-Educating? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. “Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis 20 (4): 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 3550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bohmer, David. 1977. “The Causes of Electoral Alignments: Some Considerations on How Partisan Behavior is Shaped.” In Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland: Proceedings of the First Conference on Maryland History, eds. Land, Aubrey C., Carr, Lois Green, and Papemfuse, Edward P.. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bohmer, David. 1978. “The Maryland Electorate and the Concept of a Party System in the Early National Period.” In The History of American Electoral Behavior, eds. Silbey, Joel H. and Bogue, Allan G.. pp. 146–73.Google Scholar
Bond, Robert M., Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Jason J., Kramer, Adam D. I., Marlow, Cameron, Settle, Jaime E., and Fowler, James H.. 2012. “A 61-million-person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization.” Nature (London). Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 489 (7415): 295–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgatti, Stephen P. 2005. “Centrality and Network Flow.” Social Networks 27 (1): 5571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke, Paul F., and DeBats, Donald A.. 1977. “Identifiable Voting in Nineteenth-Century America: Toward a Comparison of Britain and the United States Before the Secret Ballot.” Perspectives in American History 11: 259–88.Google Scholar
Bourke, Paul F., and DeBats, Donald A.. 1980. “Individuals and Aggregates: A Note on Historical Data and Assumptions.” Social Science History 4 (2): 229–50.Google Scholar
Bourke, Paul F., and DeBats, Donald A.. 1985. “Restoring Politics to Political History.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15 (3): 459–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke, Paul F., and DeBats, Donald A.. 1987. “The Structures of Political Involvement in the Nineteenth Century: A Frontier Case.” Perspectives in American History 3: 207–38.Google Scholar
Bourke, Paul, and DeBats, Donald A.. 1995. Washington County: Politics and Community in Antebellum America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bourke, Paul, DeBats, Donald, and Phelan, Thomas. 2001. “Comparing Individual-Level Returns with Aggregates a Historical Appraisal of the King Solution.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 34 (3): 127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Snipp, Joseph. 1993. “Local Sources of Information and Voter Choice in State Elections Microlevel Foundations of the ”Friends and Neighbors” Effect.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (4): 473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Sniderman, Paul M.. 1977. “From Life Space to Polling Place: The Relevance of Personal Concerns for Voting Behavior.” British Journal of Political Science 7 (03): 337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David E. 2013. “Social Networks and Political Participation.” Annual Review of Political Science 16 (1): 3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Campbell, David E., Green, John C., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2011. “The Party Faithful: Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 4258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Taylor N., and Settle, Jaime E.. 2016. “Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions.” Political Behavior 38 (4): 817–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1968. “Response Validity: Vote Report.” Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (4): 588606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormen, Thomas H., Leiserson, Charles E., Rivest, Ronald L., and Stein, Clifford. 2009. Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DeBats, Donald Arthur. 2004. The Politics of German Americans: Three Case Studies from an Industrial Age. In German-American Immigration and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective, eds. Helbich, W. and Kamphoefner, Walter D.. Madison: MaxKade Institute for German-American Studies, University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
DeBats, Donald A. 2008. “A Tale of Two Cities: Using Tax Records to Develop GIS Files for Mapping and Understanding Nineteenth-Century U.S. Cities.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 41 (1): 1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBats, Donald A. 2009. “Using GIS and Individual-Level Data for Whole Communities A Path Toward the Reconciliation of Political and Social History.” Social Science Computer Review 27 (3): 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBats, Donald A. 2011. “Political Consequences of Spatial Organization.” Social Science History 35 (4): 505–41.Google Scholar
DeBats, Donald A., and Lethbridge, Mark. 2005. “GIS and the City: Nineteenth-Century Residential Patterns.” Historical Geograph 33: 7898.Google Scholar
DeCanio, Samuel. 2007. “Religion and Nineteenth-Century Voting Behavior: A New Look at Some Old Data.” Journal of Politics 69 (2): 339–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz. 1980. “The Columbia Studies of Personal Influence: Social Network Analysis.” Social Science History 4 (2): 207–28.Google Scholar
Eveland, William P., and Hively, Myiah Hutchens. 2009. “Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and Heterogeneity of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation.” Journal of Communication 59 (2): 205–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1964. Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., Heaney, Michael T., Nickerson, David W., Padgett, John F., and Sinclair, Betsy. 2011. “Causality in Political Networks.” American Politics Research 39 (2): 437–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Smirnov, Oleg. 2005. “Dynamic Parties and Social Turnout: An Agent Based Model.” American Journal of Sociology 110 (4): 1070–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Park, David, Shor, Boris, and Cortina, Jeronimo. 2009. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do (Expanded Edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102 (01): 3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Shachar, Ron. 2003. “Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 540–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Karnes, Kimberly A., McTague, John, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2008. “Distance-Decay in the Political Geography of Friends-and-Neighbors Voting.” Political Geography 27 (2): 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, Melvyn. 1977. The Indiana Voter: The Historical Dynamics of Party Allegiance During the 1870s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heckman, James A. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47 (1): 153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2010. “Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports Tests using the Item Count Technique.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (1): 3767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honaker, James, King, Gary, Blackwell, Matthew, et al. 2011. “Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data.” Journal of Statistical Software 45 (7): 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert. 1983. “Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choice.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (3): 651–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1995. “Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 1025–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., and Sprague, J.. 2002. “Political Environments, Political Dynamics, and the Survival of Disagreement.” The Journal of Politics 64 (01): 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John D.. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Pietryka, Matthew T., and Reilly, Jack. 2014. “Noise, Bias, and Expertise in Political Communication Networks.” Social Networks 36: 110–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Killworth, Peter D., Johnsen, Eugene C., McCarty, Christopher, Shelley, Gene Ann, and Bernard, H. Russell. 1998. “A Social Network Approach to Estimating Seroprevalence in the United States.” Social Networks 20 (1): 2350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review 95 (1): 4969.Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey. 2010. Civic Talk: Peers, Politics, and the Future of Democracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, Kenneth P., and Rapoport, Ronald. 1976. “Religion and Leftist Mobilization in Chile.” Comparative Political Studies 9 (3): 277308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1948. People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992. “Individual and Systemic Influences on Turnout - Who Votes, 1984.” Journal of Politics 54: 718–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makse, Todd, and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2012. “Yard Sign Displays and the Enthusiasm Gap in the 2008 and 2010 Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (04): 694–9.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2006. “The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 737–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, Tyler H., Moussa, Amal, Ruf, Johannes, DiPrete, Thomas A., Gelman, Andrew, Teitler, Julien, and Zheng, Tian. 2013. “A Practical Guide to Measuring Social Structure Using Indirectly Observed Network Data.” Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice 7 (1): 120–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, Jack M., Scheufele, Dietram A., and Moy, Patricia. 1999. “Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation.” Political Communication 16 (3): 315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, Marc. 2013. “Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects.” American Political Science Review 107 (04): 742–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Patrick R., Bobkowski, Piotr S., Maliniak, Daniel, and Rapoport, Ronald B.. 2015. “Talking Politics on Facebook Network Centrality and Political Discussion Practices in Social Media.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (2): 377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana Carole. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102 (01): 4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Junn, Jane, and Stehlik-Barry, Kenneth. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, and Ha, Shang E.. 2007. “Vote Choice in Suburban Elections.” American Political Science Review (03): 393408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. “Affect, Social Pressure and Prosocial Motivation: Field Experimental Evidence of the Mobilizing Effects of Pride, Shame and Publicizing Voting Behavior.” Political Behavior 32 (3): 369–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richey, Sean. 2008. “The Autoregressive Influence of Social Network Political Knowledge on Voting Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (03): 527–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, Meredith. 2012. Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rozett, John. 1977. “The Social Base of Party Conflict in the Age of Jackson.” Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Ryan, John Barry. 2011. “Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (4): 753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2009. “Opiates for the Matches: Matching Methods for Causal Inference.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (1): 487508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shortridge, Ray M. 1980. “Voter Turnout in the Midwest, 1840–1872.” Social Science Quarterly 60 (4): 617–29.Google Scholar
Siegel, David A. 2009. “Social Networks and Collective Action.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 122–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, David A. 2013. “Social Networks and the Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 107 (04): 786805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Michelson, Melissa R.. 2013. “Local Canvassing: The Efficacy of Grassroots Voter Mobilization.” Political Communication 30 (1): 4257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokhey, Anand Edward, and McClurg, Scott D.. 2012. “Social Networks and Correct Voting.” The Journal of Politics 74 (03): 751–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1962. “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77: 945–56.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, Raymond. 1975. “‘Friends and Neighbors’ Voting: Mississippi, 1943–73.” The Journal of Politics 37 (03): 807–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2015. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 8th ed. AAPOR.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingsten, Herbert. 1963. Political Behavior: Studies in Election Statistics. Totowa, NJ: Bedminster Press. Originally published in 1937.Google Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2009. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
VanderWeele, Tyler J. 2011. “Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks.” Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2): 240–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Pietryka and Debats supplementary material

Online Appendices

Download Pietryka and Debats supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

It’s Not Just What You Have, but Who You Know: Networks, Social Proximity to Elites, and Voting in State and Local Elections
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

It’s Not Just What You Have, but Who You Know: Networks, Social Proximity to Elites, and Voting in State and Local Elections
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

It’s Not Just What You Have, but Who You Know: Networks, Social Proximity to Elites, and Voting in State and Local Elections
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *