Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-s8fcc Total loading time: 0.226 Render date: 2022-12-04T05:28:09.590Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
Political Analysis Political Analysis

Article contents

Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two-Candidate and Three-Candidate Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Mitchell S. Sanders
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I use a theory of individual utility maximization to derive a unified model of electoral behavior that includes both candidate choices and turnout decisions. Compared to this new unified model, existing specifications for jointly considering turnout and vote choice are found to be theoretically or empirically lacking. I provide methods for testing my model in elections with two or three candidates, and I show that the parameters of these models can be estimated without difficulty using maximum likelihood techniques. Application of these unified models to the 1988 and 1992 American presidential elections illustrates the potential contrasts between unified models and models that consider only candidate choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 7 , 1998 , pp. 89 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 

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., and Aldrich, John H. 1982. “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76: 502–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. 1995. Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. “Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 719–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amemiya, Takeshi. 1985. Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1990. “Surge and Decline, Negative Voting, and the Midterm Loss Phenomenon: A Simultaneous Choice Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 615–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Ansolabehere, Stephen. 1989. “The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics.” American Political Science Review 83: 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Patterson, Samuel C., and Markko, Gregory A. 1985. “The Mobilization of Voters in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47: 490–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastoor, Naorayex K. 1985. “A Classical Approach to Cox's Test for Nonnested Hypotheses.” Journal of Econometrics 27: 363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Russell, and MacKinnon, James G. 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, Robert, and Shapiro, Perry. 1975. “Private Preferences for Collective Goods Revealed through Voting on Referenda.” American Economic Review 65: 943–55.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Rivers, Douglas. 1990. “Selection Bias in Linear Regression, Logit and Probit Models.” Sociological Methods and Research 18: 360–90.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Merran, Hastings, Nicholas, and Peacock, Brian. 1993. Statistical Distributions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Filer, John E., and Kenney, Lawrence W. 1980. “Voter Turnout and the Benefits of Voting.” Public Choice 35: 575–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germond, Jack W., and Witcover, Jules. 1989. Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars? The Trivial Pursuit of the Presidency 1988. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
Germond, Jack W., and Witcover, Jules. 1993. Mad as Hell: Revolt at the Ballot Bos, 1992. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
Goldman, Peter, and Matthews, Tom. 1989. The Quest for the Presidency 1988. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Goldman, Peter, DeFrank, Thomas M., Miller, Mark, Murr, Andrew, and Matthews, Tom. 1994. Quest for the Presidency 1992. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Roderick Kiewiet, D. 1979. “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Roderick Kiewiet, D. 1981. “Sociotropic Politics: The American Case.” British Journal of Political Science 11: 129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ledyard, John. 1984. “The Pure Theory of Two-Candidate Elections.” Public Choice 44: 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992. “Individual and Systemic Influences on Turnout: Who Votes? 1984.” Journal of Politics 54: 718–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, Duncan R. 1956. “Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination.” Econometrica 24: 178–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1988. “The Impact of Personal and National Economic Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 137–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and the National Election Studies. 1989. American National Election Study, 1988: Pre- and Post-Election Survey [computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, 1989 [original producer]. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1989 [producer and distributor].Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., Kinder, Donald R., Rosenstone, Steven J., and the National Election Studies. 1993. American National Election Study, 1998: Pre- and Post-Election Survey [Enhanced with 1990 and 1991 data] [computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, ML Google Scholar
University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1993.Google Scholar
Moon, David. 1992. “The Determinants of Turnout in Presidential Elections: An Integrative Model Accounting for Information.” Political Behavior 14: 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, Roger G. 1993. “Downsian Thresholds and the Theory of Political Advertising.” In Information, Participation and Choice, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J. 1992. “Primaries, General Elections, and Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly 20: 205–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66: 979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Poole, Keith T. 1987. “The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1991. “An Algorithm for Estimating Turnout as a Guide to Predicting Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 643–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “U.S. Presidential Elections 1968-80: A Spatial Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 282–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, Lyn, and Rusk, Jerrold G. 1993. “Who Are Nonvoters? Profiles from the 1990 Senate Study.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 721–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runkel, David R., ed. 1989. Campaign for President: The Managers Look at ‘88. Dover, MA: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 1982. “The Nonvoting Voter in Voting Research.” American Journal of Political Science 26: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, Roeder, Philip W., Jewell, Malcolm E., and Baer, Michael A. 1985. “Voting and Nonvoting: A Multi-election Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 749–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 1988. “The Mobilization Hypothesis and Voter Turnout in Congressional Elections 1974-1982.” Western Political Quarterly 41: 273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill, Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Glass, David P. 1987. “Residential Mobility and Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 81: 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Harold W., and Niemi, Richard G. 1990. Vital Statistics on American Politics. 2d edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Harold W., and Niemi, Richard G. 1994. Vital Statistics on American Politics. 4th edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob. 1994. The Agenda. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipp, John F. 1985. “Perceived Representativeness and Voting: An Assessment of the Impact of ‘Choices’ vs. ‘Echoes.’” American Political Science Review 79: 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two-Candidate and Three-Candidate Elections
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two-Candidate and Three-Candidate Elections
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two-Candidate and Three-Candidate 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? *