Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:32:01.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Get Information or Get in Formation: The Effects of High-Information Environments on Legislative Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2020

Marc Trussler Open the ORCID record for Marc Trussler [Opens in a new window]
Marc Trussler*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the changing information environment affect the degree to which voters make independent decisions for different offices on their ballots? Leveraging the gradual roll-out of broadband internet across the United States and across congressional districts, this study uses within-district variation over four election cycles to examine the effects of internet access on voting behavior in US legislative elections. The results show that the expansion of broadband resulted in less split-ticket voting and a lower incumbency advantage because voters exposed to increased high-speed internet voted in a more partisan fashion. Consistent with work demonstrating the effect of the internet on local news consumption, the results suggest that the change in the information environment resulting from enhanced internet access led voters to prioritize national considerations over local considerations. This has important consequences for not only how voters act, but the resulting incentives that elected officials confront.

Keywords

political communicationaccountabilityrepresentationinformation technologyvoting behavior
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 1529 - 1549
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Angrist, JD and Pischke, J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K and Johnson, M (2015) Polarization and partisan news media in America. In Thurber, JA and Yoshinaka, A (eds), American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political polarization. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309–336.Google Scholar
Arnold, RD (2013) Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberá, P et al. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science 26(10), 1531–1542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, LM (1993) Messages received: the political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review 87(2), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2000) Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science 44(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, B (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, SA (1999) The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–96. American Political Science Review 93(3), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, JL et al. (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54(3), 598–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, JL and Roberts, JM (2011) House and senate elections. In Edwards, GC, Lee, FE and Schickler, E (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, JD and Enamorado, T (2014) The national news media's effect on Congress: how Fox News affected elites in Congress. The Journal of Politics 76(4), 928–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, TE (1989) Making Laws and Making News. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cox, GW and Katz, JN (1996) Why did the incumbency advantage in US House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science 40(2), 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GW and Terry, WC (2008) Legislative productivity in the 93rd–105th congresses. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4), 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darr, JP and Dunaway, JL (2017) Resurgent mass partisanship revisited: the role of media choice in clarifying elite ideology. American Politics Research 46(6), 943–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darr, JP, Hitt, MP and Dunaway, JL (2018) Newspaper closures polarize voting behavior. Journal of Communication 68(6), 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, E and Schoenbach, K (2010) News sites’ position in the mediascape: uses, evaluations and media displacement effects over time. New Media & Society 12(3), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, RS and Titiunik, R (2015) Using regression discontinuity to uncover the personal incumbency advantage. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, RF (1978) Home Style: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.Google Scholar
Gaskins, B and Jerit, J (2012) Internet news: is it a replacement for traditional media outlets? The International Journal of Press/Politics 17(2), 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A and King, G (1990) Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 34(4), 1142–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, M and Shapiro, JM (2011) Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4), 1799–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J (2013) Appropriators not position takers: the distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science 57(3), 624–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, AM (2016) Media choice and moderation: Evidence from online tracking data. Unpublished manuscript. Available from https://www.dropbox.com/s/uk005hhio3dysm8/GuessJMP.pdf?dl=0.Google Scholar
Ha, L and Fang, L (2012) Internet experience and time displacement of traditional news media use: an application of the theory of the niche. Telematics and Informatics 29(2), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D and Lawless, JL (2015) As local news goes, so goes citizen engagement: media, knowledge, and participation in US House elections. The Journal of Politics 77(2), 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D and Lawless, JL (2018) The decline of local news and its effects: new evidence from longitudinal data. The Journal of Politics 80(1), 332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, MJ (2001) Resurgent mass partisanship: the role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review 95(3), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindman, M (2008) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hindman, M (2011) Less of the same: The lack of local news on the internet. Federal Communications Commission. Available from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307476A1.pdf.Google Scholar
Hitt, L and Tambe, P (2007) Broadband adoption and content consumption. Information Economics and Policy 19(3), 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, DJ (2018) The Increasingly United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S and Kinder, DR (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S and Simon, A (1993) News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: a study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research 20(3), 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, GC (2015a) It's nothing personal: the decline of the incumbency advantage in US House elections. The Journal of Politics 77(3), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, GC (2015b) It's nothing personal: the decline of the incumbency advantage in US House elections. Harvard Dataverse. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/29559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohut, A (2008) Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Biennial Media Consumption Survey 2008. Available from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/legacy-questionnaires/444.pdf.Google Scholar
Kolko, J (2010) A new measure of US residential broadband availability. Telecommunications Policy 34(3), 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiss, D, Lawrence, RG and McGregor, SC (2018) In their own words: political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication 35(1), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, DS and Brown, AR (2011) Twitter: the electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review 29(4), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, DS (2001) The electoral advantage to incumbency and voters’ valuation of politicians’ experience: A regression discontinuity analysis of elections to the US House. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, DS (2008) Randomized experiments from non-random selection in US House elections. Journal of Econometrics 142(2), 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelkes, Y, Sood, G and Iyengar, S (2015) The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science 61(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, SD and Wolfram, CD (1997) Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the US House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, J (1982 (1788)) The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, DR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection, vol. 26. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pariser, E (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Peterson, E (2017) The role of the information environment in partisan voting. The Journal of Politics 79(4), 1191–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M (2006) The incumbent in the living room: the rise of television and the incumbency advantage in US House elections. Journal of Politics 68(3), 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M (2009a) The immensely inflated news audience: assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly 73, 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M (2009b) Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics 71(3), 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16, 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, BF (2006) Local news coverage and the incumbency advantage in the US House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4), 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E (1942) Party Government. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Scheufele, DA and Tewksbury, D (2006) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
Schudson, M (2000) The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seamans, R and Zhu, F (2010) Technology shocks in multi-sided markets: The impact of Craigslist on local newspapers. NET Institute working paper. Available from http://www.netinst.org/Seamans_Zhu_10-11.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, JM and Strömberg, D (2008) Press coverage and political accountability. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, JR et al. (2013) Communicating in 140 characters or less: congressional adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress. PS: Political Science & Politics 46(1), 60–66.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sussell, J (2013) New support for the big sort hypothesis: an assessment of partisan geographic sorting in California, 1992–2010. PS: Political Science & Politics 46(4), 768–773.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, D (2003) What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the internet. Journal of Communication 53(4), 694–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trussler, M (2019) “Replication Data sets for, Get Information or Get in Formation: The Effects of High Information Environments on Legislative Elections”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C4QGBT, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:jI4T5ntjmSSow6pC53B5Eg== [fileUNF].Google Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aelst, P et al. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association 41(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, S (2011) The information needs of communities: The changing media landscape in a broadband age. Federal Communications Commission. Available from https://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/The_Information_Needs_of_Communities.pdf.Google Scholar
Wallsten, S and Mallahan, C (2010) Residential broadband competition in the United States. Federal Communications Commission. Available from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1684236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Trussler supplementary material

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C4QGBT
Link