Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:57:32.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter Heterogeneity: Informational Differences and Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2009

Jason Roy
Jason Roy*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Jason Roy, Department of Political Science, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Do differences in levels of political information affect the vote calculus? Do differences in the decision process along informational divides affect vote choice? Using data from the 2004 Canadian Election Study this research tests the influence of political information on both the vote decision process and incumbent vote shares through a series of analyses that compare actual and simulated behaviour across information levels. The proposition being tested contends that information heterogeneity produces differences in the vote calculus that in turn lead to systematic and significant variation in vote choice. The results suggest that information does indeed affect the decision calculus and outcome, but not necessarily as one might expect.

Résumé. Le niveau d'information politique des électeurs a-t-il une incidence sur leur vote? Les différences dans le processus décisionnel associées au niveau d'information influent-elles sur les électeurs? Grâce aux données tirées de l'édition 2004 de l'Étude électorale canadienne et à une série d'estimations et de simulations statistiques, cet article propose de tester l'influence du niveau d'information politique sur le processus décisionnel des électeurs et sur le soutien accordé aux urnes au parti sortant. La proposition testée ici stipule que la présence d'hétérogénéité dans l'information politique des électeurs influe sur leurs mécanismes de décision, ce qui entraîne une variation systématique et significative dans le choix du vote. Les résultats suggèrent que l'information politique a une incidence sur le processus décisionnel des électeurs et sur leur vote, bien que cet impact n'aille pas nécessairement dans le sens attendu.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 117 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

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

Althaus, Scott L. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review 92(3): 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Nagler, Jonathan. 1998. “When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 55–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartle, John. 2005. “Homogeneous Models and Heterogeneous Voters.” Political Studies 53(4): 653–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, Scott J. and Lavine, Howard. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 99(2): 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, 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
Bettman, James R., Johnson, Eric J. and Payne, John W.. 1990. “A Componential Analysis of Cognitive Effort in Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45: 111–39.CrossRefGoogle 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(4): 935–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Andre, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2002. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough ON.: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Canadian Election Study. 2004. http://ces-eec.mcgill.ca/. (January 2, 2009).Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1962. “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 26(4): 578–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. E.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Fred. 2002. “The Simplest Shortcut of All: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Electoral Choice.” Journal of Politics 64(2): 466–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Keeter, Scott. 1993. “Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First.” American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1179–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dow, J. and Endersby, J.. 2004. “Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research.” Electoral Studies 23: 107–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Blais, André, Everitt, Joanna, Fournier, Patrick and Nevitte, Neil. 2006. “Back to the Future? Making Sense of the 2004 Canadian Election outside Quebec.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 39(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Blais, André, Nevitte, Neil and Nadeau, Richard. 2004. Democratic Citizenship in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth and Nevitte, Neil. 1996. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M. and Petrocik, John R.. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 864–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns, Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R. and Poole, Keith T.. 1987. “The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 31(3): 511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Vincent and Zaller, John. 1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 57(2): 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32(3): 737–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanteau, J. 1988. “Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers.” Acta Psychologica 68: 203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1955. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1978. “Rationality as process and as product of thought.” American Economic Review 68: 1–16.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A. and Tetlock, Philip. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. 1989. “Bringing Converse Back In: Modeling Information Flow in Political Campaigns.” Political Analysis 1(1): 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1991. “Information, Values, and Opinion.” The American Political Science Review 85(4): 1215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar