Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Controlling Governments
- Introduction
- 1 Explaining the Electoral Performance of Incumbents in Democracies
- 2 How Can Governments Be Accountable If Voters Vote Ideologically?
- 3 Enduring Ethnicity: The Political Survival of Incumbent Ethnic Parties in Western Democracies
- 4 Performance or Representation? The Determinants of Voting in Complex Political Contexts
- 5 Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study
- 6 The Political Consequences of Internal Party Democracy
- 7 Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties
- 8 Constitutions and Democratic Breakdowns
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
5 - Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2009
By
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Controlling Governments
- Introduction
- 1 Explaining the Electoral Performance of Incumbents in Democracies
- 2 How Can Governments Be Accountable If Voters Vote Ideologically?
- 3 Enduring Ethnicity: The Political Survival of Incumbent Ethnic Parties in Western Democracies
- 4 Performance or Representation? The Determinants of Voting in Complex Political Contexts
- 5 Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study
- 6 The Political Consequences of Internal Party Democracy
- 7 Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties
- 8 Constitutions and Democratic Breakdowns
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
This chapter examines the decision-making process by which individual voters cast their ballots. In particular, it discusses two traditional explanations of electoral behavior: ideological voting and performance voting. These explanations of voting share a common assumption: electors' decisions are based on what they expect to get from their choice. Each potential outcome has a benefit or a cost, and citizens might choose the one benefiting them most or costing them least. That is, voters will maximize the utility of their electoral decision. To maximize the utility of a given decision, an individual needs to have a certain amount of information at hand.
Previous research has explained the simple and straightforward decision rule at work in both ideological and performance voting. In the case of ideological voting, citizens vote for the party that is perceived to be closer to their ideal position on the left–right dimension. Given the lack of perfect information for the electorate, Downs conceived ideology as an information-saving device – that is, a perceptual cue that helps ordinary citizens gain a general idea about the policy positions of the main parties of their political system. In the case of performance voting, citizens decide on a standard of what they consider good performance and reward the incumbent if this standard has been achieved; otherwise, they punish the incumbent.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Controlling GovernmentsVoters, Institutions, and Accountability, pp. 131 - 156Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Robert, Anthony Heath, and Richard Sinnot. 2001. “Political Knowledge and Electoral Choices.” CREST Working Paper No. 87.
. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartle, John. 1997. “Political Awareness and Heterogeneity in Models of Voting: Some Evidence from the Recent British Election Studies.” In , , , and (eds.), British Elections and Parties Review, vol. 7 (pp. 1–24). London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Know-nothing Revisited: The Meaning of Political Ignorance Today.” Social Science Quarterly 69: 476–90.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Trends in Americans' Political Information, 1967–1987.” American Politics Quarterly 17: 422–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “Americas' Knowledge of Ideology, 1980–1992.” American Politics Quarterly 23: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2005. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 13: 1–20.Google Scholar
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2005. CSES Module 2 Third Advance Release [data set]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. June 29 (see http://www.cses.org).
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (pp. 206–61). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1970. “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (pp. 168–89). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Costa Lobo, Marina, Pedro Magalhaes, and André Freire. 2004. “Introduçao.” In , and (eds.), Portugal a Votos: As Eleiçoes Legislativas de 2002 (pp. 25–34). Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciencias Sociais.Google Scholar
, and . 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In , , and (eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp. 55–97). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 899–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2006. “Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting: 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Macro-economics and Micro-politics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
, and . 1979. “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgements in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1981. “Sociotropic Politics.” British Journal of Political Science 11: 129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1971. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964.” American Political Science Review 65: 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate versus Individual Level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 77: 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. “Voters, Information Heterogeneity, and the Dynamics of Aggregate Economic Expectations.” American Journal of Political Science 41: 1170–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes. 1999. “Elections and Representation.” In , , and (eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (pp. 29–54). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Civic Literacy: How Informed Citizens Make Democracy Work. Tufts University: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Knowledge and the Position of Attitudes to a European Foreign Policy on the Real-to-Random Continuum.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12: 113–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 1991. Reasoning and Choice. Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Can Voters Be Equal? A Cross-National Analysis. Part 1.” The Review of Sociology 9: 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2004. “The 2004 Spanish General Election: In the Shadow of Al-Qaeda?” South European Society & Politics 9 (3): 107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 2004. “Floating Voters in US Presidential Elections: 1948–2000.” In and (eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by