Agenda Why local primaries Theory & Predictions Methodology Preliminary Results – A short-term effect – Why?
Why local primaries Not well understood In low information environment, information treatment should have a larger impact Regularly occurring – More opportunities to research – Possibility to generalize to large class of elections
Theory & Predictions Dahl: A persons interest or good is whatever that person would choose with fullest attainable understanding of the experiences resulting from that choice and its most relevant alternatives – Our information conditions are close to a practical operationalization of full-information votingdoes it make a difference? Are citizens competent under better circumstances? Popkins: Low information rationality, or using heuristics or shortcuts to the information to make decisions – Information should reduce reliance on heuristics, like voting for the candidate who shares my gender
Methodology A Randomized Field Experiment Mundane realism: the subjects are in a realistic setting Internal validity: causal inference appropriate through random assignment Generalizable: ideally, random sampling Cheap & easy to administer E.g., Iyengars MAPSS talk, 2/6/07 and Greens talk 2/13/07
Methodology (contd) Procedure Orlando primaries, Tues Sept. 5, 2006 – Orlando Sentinel uses theVoterGuide.org to collect candidate data on 22 races including Governor, Senate, Congress, non-partisan judges 514 participants recruited from online panel on Thurs Aug 31 – Skews towards more education, politically aware, male – Randomly assigned to condition differing by kind and amount of election information – 307 participants responded to follow up survey (Sept 6-7) Surveyed on vote intentions, vote choice, attitudes and general and campaign-specific knowledge
Research design RX1O1O2RX2O1O2RX3O1O2RX4O1O2RX1O1O2RX2O1O2RX3O1O2RX4O1O2 Party, Vote Choice, Attitudes, Demographics Turnout, Vote Choice, Bio & Issue Knowledge,
Random Assignment Contact Information Only Biographical Information Issue information All Information Condition
T1 Vote Choice-Executive Likelihood ratio test IssueBio Governor0.024 *0.732 FL Attorney General0.047 *0.134 FL Chief Financial Officer0.046 *0.683 Orange County Mayor0.028 *0.006 **
T1 Vote Choice-Legislative Likelihood ratio test IssueBio US Senate0.1580.085 US Congress 5th0.2460.238 US Congress 8th0.6550.759 US Congress 15th0.8140.697 US Congress 24th0.008**0.313 Florida Senate - 8th0.4240.772 Florida house - 360.9630.204 Florida House - 410.015*0.072
T1 Vote Choice - Judicial Likelihood ratio test IssueBio County Judge – 170.3800.040 * County Judge – 60.4770.012 * County Judge – 70.7780.768 County Judge – 50.7260.289 Circuit Judge 5th Group 70.0270.124 Circuit Judge 9th Group 50.3040.005 ** Circuit Judge 18thF0.7960.836
Reduce support for the leading candidate? n = 2,335 voter * races
Reduce gender-based voting? n = 1,412 voter * races
Summary of results No long –term effects Election information makes a difference in local primary vote choice – Issue information changes choices in many executive races – Issue information changes some choices in legislative races – Biographical information changes choices in judicial Some evidence that information affects vote choice through gender -No consistent story (yet?) for why issue information changes vote choice -Among males, biographical information reduces gender-based voting -Among females, biographical information increases gender-based voting
Parting thoughts… Memory aids are really important and interesting potential impact of mail & internet voting What is the point of local primaries? Future research: – Can we replicate the gender results in a lab experiment? – How would these results differ in a general election? – Would deliberation make a difference? – What impact does social information (i.e., personal endorsements) have? – Would edited information make a difference? – Does one-sided information make a difference?
Random Assignment (contd) AgeFemale Gen'l Political Knowledge NMSDM M No issue info No Bio13347.914.40.3680.4840.8820.193 Bio124220.127.116.1190.4750.8660.203 Issue Info No Bio11248.015.10.4020.4920.8600.244 Bio10548.913.70.5050.5020.9020.190
T2 Vote Choice Likelihood ratio test IssueBioIssueBio Governor0.1280.621 Attorney General0.7340.444Cty Judge 170.6640.087 CFO0.5670.570Cty Judge 60.9820.082 OC Mayor0.6910.307Cty Judge 40.1280.492 U.S. House 8Th0.1930.243Cty Judge 50.7810.206 U.S. House 13Th0.1440.581Crct 5 Judge0.1390.092 U.S. House 24Th0.2590.994Crct 9 Judge0.7800.148 State Senate 80.1650.441Crct 18 Judge0.8900.326 State House 410.0830.253
T1 Results SourcedfFEtap Issue Information Endorsement Knowl. Item13.3850.0820.066 Candidates on Issues18.6660.1300.003 Biographical Information Endorsement Knowl. Item122.3100.2050.000 Candidates on Issues11.3910.0520.239 Issue x Biographical Information Endorsement Knowl. Item10.3490.0260.555 Candidates on Issues10.3670.0270.545 Error Endorsement Knowl. Item5060.170 Candidates on Issues5060.055
T1 Vote Choice – Governor Issue InformationBio Information NoYesNoYes Democrats Carol Castagnero18.104.22.168 Glenn Burkett22.214.171.124.4 Jim Davis2221.120.822.4 John M. Crotty126.96.36.199.6 Rod Smith11.917.312.416.5 Republicans Charlie Crist36.129.535.930.2 Michael W. St. J188.8.131.52 Tom Gallagher11.911.410.412.9 Vernon Palmer184.108.40.206.8 Likelihood ratio test.024 *.732
T1 Results Endorsement Knowledge Item Understand candidates on the issues NMSDM No Issue Info No Bio Info1390.1650.3730.2680.168 Bio Info1360.3600.4820.3050.188 Issue Info No Bio Info1170.1200.3260.3420.204 Bio Info1180.2710.4460.3540.191
T2 Turnout, Knowledge T2 Turnout T2 Issue Knowledge T2 Biographical Knowledge NMSDM M No issue info No Bio Info9064.448.10.1570.2170.4190.351 Bio Info7661.848.90.2020.230.4820.320 Issue Info No Bio Info6663.6220.127.116.110.5230.327 Bio Info7464.848.10.2070.2210.4210.346
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.