Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-crm7g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-09T10:16:44.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian and American Voting Strategies: Does Institutional Socialization Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2012

Jason Roy  and
Shane Singh
Jason Roy*
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Shane Singh*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
*
Jason Roy, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ON N2L 3C5, Canada, jroy@wlu.ca
Shane Singh, Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia, Athens GA, 30602, USA, singh@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This paper uses data from an online voting experiment to examine the impact of institutional socialization on the vote decision process. More specifically, we examine how Canadian and American voters differ in their vote decision processes in two- and four-party elections. Our expectation is that Canadian voters, who are more familiar with multiparty electoral context, will adjust to the increased complexity of the four-party competition by engaging in a more detailed decision process. Alternatively, we expect US voters, who are less familiar with multiparty competitions, will not undertake such an adjustment, perhaps even engaging in a less detailed vote calculus under more complex conditions. Results lend support to our expectations, offering insight into how institutional design and socialization can affect voter decision processes.

Résumé. Cet article utilise des données tirées d'une expérience de vote en ligne pour examiner l'impact de la socialisation institutionnelle sur le processus décisionnel menant au vote. Nous examinons en particulier comment les électeurs canadiens et américains diffèrent dans leur processus décisionnel lors d'élections à deux et à quatre partis. Nos attentes sont les suivantes : Les électeurs canadiens, plus familiers avec le multipartisme, s'ajusteront à la plus grande complexité d'une élection à quatre partis en s'engageant dans un processus décisionnel plus sophistiqué. Les électeurs américains, quant à eux habitués davantage au bipartisme, ne feront pas de tels ajustements lorsque le contexte électoral se complexifiera et auront peut-être même tendance à simplifier leur processus décisionnel. Nos résultats tendent à confirmer nos attentes, offrant ainsi un aperçu de la façon dont le contexte institutionnel et la socialisation qui en résulte peuvent influencer le processus décisionnel des électeurs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 289 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcañiz, Isabella, and Hellwig, Timothy. 2011. “Who's to Blame? The Distribution of Responsibility in Developing Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 41: 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, Scott L. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review 92: 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David A. and Duch, Raymond M.. 2010. “Why Can Voters Anticipate Post-Election Coalition Formation Likelihoods.” Electoral Studies 29: 308–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan A. and Karp, Jeffrey A.. 2009. “Electoral Systems, Efficacy, and Voter Turnout.” In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, ed. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bargsted, Matias A. and Kedar, Orit. 2009. “Coalition-Targeted Duvergerian Voting: How Expectations Affect Voter Choice under Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 53: 307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 194–230.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
Bittner, Amanda. 2007. “The Effects of Information and Social Cleavages: Explaining Issue Attitudes and Vote Choice in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40: 935–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Carty, R.K.. 1990. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?” European Journal of Political Research 18: 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Dobrzynska, Agnieszka. 1998. “Turnout in Electoral Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 33: 239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Fournier, Patrick and Nevitte, Neil. 2009. “Information, Visibility and Elections: Why Electoral Outcomes Differ When Voters Are Better Informed.” European Journal of Political Research 48: 256–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl. 2006. “Jurors Are Competent Cue-Takers: How Institutions Substitute for Legal Sophistication.” International Journal of Law in Context 2: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl. 2009a. “Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens?” Journal of Politics 71: 964–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl. 2009b. “Making Citizens Smart: When Do Institutions Improve Unsophisticated Citizens' Decisions?” Political Behavior 31: 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74: 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1990. “Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John A. and Kuklinski, James H.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 2006. “Democratic Theory and Electoral Reality.” Critical Review 18: 297–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Fred. 2002. “The Simplest Shortcut of All: Voter-Candidate Socio-Demographic Similarity and Electoral Choice.” Journal of Politics 64: 466–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, Kris, Orellana, Salomon and Singh, Shane. 2009. “Legislative Diversity and Social Tolerance: How Multiparty Systems Lead to Tolerant Citizens.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19: 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. and Taylor, Shelley E.. 1991. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Geys, Benny and Heyndels, Bruno. 2006. “Disentangling the Effects of Political Fragmentation on Voter Turnout: The Flemish Municipal Elections.” Economics and Politics 18: 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid K. and Dawes, Robyn M.. 2001. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy. 2008. “Globalization, Policy Constraints and Vote Choice.” Journal of Politics 70: 1128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy and Samuels, David. 2008. “Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes.” British Journal of Political Science 38: 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion, American Politics and Political Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackman, Robert W. 1987. “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies.” American Political Science Review 81: 405–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Robert W. and Miller, Ross A.. 1995. “Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies During the 1980s.” Comparative Political Studies 27: 467–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review 103: 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. “Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 72: 327–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusko, Karen Long and Shively, W. Phillips. 2005. “Applying a Two-Step Strategy to the Analysis of Cross-National Public Opinion Data.” Political Analysis 13: 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 99: 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter and Weßels, Bernhard. 2009. “How Voters Cope with the Complexity of Their Political Environment: Differentiation of Political Supply, Effectiveness of Electoral Institutions, and the Calculus of Voting.” In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, ed. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H. and Quirk, Paul J.. 2000. “Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion.” In Elements of Reason, ed. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew and Popkin, Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2008. “The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting.” Electoral Studies 27: 687–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Andersen, David J. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2008. “An Exploration of Correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52: 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Howard, Borgida, Eugene and Sullivan, John L.. 2000. “On the Relationship between Attitude Involvement and Attitude Accessibility: Toward a Cognitive-Motivational Model of Political Information Processing.” Political Psychology 21: 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marois, René and Ivanoff, Jason. 2005. “Capacity Limits of Information Processing in the Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 296–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, Byongook. 2006. “The Influence of Organizational Socialization on Police Officers' Acceptance of Community Policing.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 29: 704–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, Theodore M. 1943. Personality and Social Change: Attitude and Social Formation in a Student Community. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
Newcomb, Theodore Mead. 1967. Persistence and Change: Bennington College and Its Students after Twenty-Five Years. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Payne, John W. 1976. “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision-Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 366–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peffley, Mark and Rohrschneider, Robert. 2003. “Democratization and Political Tolerance in Seventeen Countries: A Multi-Level Model of Democratic Learning.” Political Research Quarterly 56: 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 64: 1021–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlawsk, David. 2004. “What Voters Do: Information Search During Election Campaigns.” Political Psychology 25: 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizvi, Sajjad H. 2006. “Avicenna/Ibn Sina (Ca. 980–1037).” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/avicenna/ Accessed originally January 2012. Last accessed May 14, 2012.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Matthew M. 2011. “Who Says “It's the Economy”? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance.” Comparative Political Studies 44.11: 1474–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Shane P. 2010. “Contextual Influences on the Decision Calculus: A Cross-National Examination of Proximity Voting.” Electoral Studies 29: 425–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A. and Tetlock, Philip. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review 102: 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weßels, Bernhard, and Schmitt, Hermann. 2008. “Meaningful Choices, Political Supply, and Institutional Effectiveness.” Electoral Studies 27: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar