Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:28:59.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information and Heterogeneity in Issue Voting: Evidence from the 2008 Presidential Election in Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2016

Dean Lacy  and
Emerson M. S. Niou
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A voter's capacity to acquire and retain information moderates the relationship between issues and the vote. Issues differ in their distance from the voter's personal experience. Proximate issues, such as personal economic conditions, affect the vote decisions of highly informed and less informed voters equally. Distant issues, such as national economic conditions and foreign affairs, affect the vote of highly informed voters but not less informed voters. The 2008 presidential election on Taiwan provides a critical test of the effect of information on issue voting. Unification with mainland China versus Taiwan independence is the most important issue in the 2008 election, and voters with higher levels of political information show a larger effect of the issue on their vote. The national economy is also a significant predictor of vote choice, but only for highly informed voters. Personal economic conditions and other proximate issues are not significant predictors of the vote at any information level.

Keywords

votinginformationeconomic votingforeign affairsTaiwanpresidential election
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2012 , pp. 119 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

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

Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene. 1989. “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz Before a Blind Audience’?” American Political Science Review 83, 1: 123–141.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel. 1950. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Althaus, Scott. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review 92, 1: 545–558.Google Scholar
Althaus, Scott. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review 104, 2: 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6: 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40, 1: 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Intelligence Agency. 2010. The World Factbook: Taiwan. August. Available at www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent , ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. 2001. “A Development Model of Heterogeneous Voting in New Democracies.” American Political Science Review 95, 4: 895–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randy T.. 2006. “Assessing the Magnitude of the Economic Vote Over Time and Across Nations.” Electoral Studies 25, 3: 528–547.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randy T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, Jean-François, and Bélanger, Éric. 2007. “Economic Voting and Political Sophistication: A Reassessment.” Political Research Quarterly 60, 3: 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, Brad, and Wilson, Matthew. 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution.” American Journal of Political Science 45, 4: 899–914.Google Scholar
Gomez, Brad, and Wilson, Matthew. 2006. “Cognitive Heterogeneity and Economic Voting: A Comparative Analysis of Four Democratic Electorates.” American Journal of Political Science 50, 1: 127–145.Google Scholar
Gomez, Brad, and Wilson, Matthew. 2007. “Economic Voting and Political Sophistication: Defending Heterogenous Attributon.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 555–558.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 1997. Political Expertise and Issue Voting. Political Research Quarterly 50, 2: 387–412.Google Scholar
Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng, Lacy, Dean P., and Niou, Emerson M. S.. 1998. “Retrospective and Prospective Voting in a One-Party-Dominant Democracy: Taiwan's 1996 Presidential Election.” Public Choice 97: 383–399.Google Scholar
Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng, Lacy, Dean P., and Niou, Emerson M. S.. 2003. “Retrospective vs. Prospective Voting in Taiwan's 2001 Legislative Yuan Elections.” Paper presented at the Conference on Electoral Politics in Taiwan, University of South Carolina, April 11.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald, and Kiewiet, Roderick. 1981. “Sociotropic Politics: The American Case.” British Journal of Political Science 11, 2: 129–161.Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Christenson, Dino. 2007. “Information and Heterogeneity in Economic Voting.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard, Borgida, Eugene, Sullivan, John L., and Thomsen, Cynthia J.. 1996. “The Relationship of National and Personal Issue Salience to Attitude Accessibility on Foreign and Domestic Policy Issues.” Political Psychology 17: 293–316.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 211.Google Scholar
Li, Yitan, James, Patrick, and Cooper Drury, A.. 2009. “Diversionary Dragons, or ‘Talking Tough in Taipei’: Cross-Strait Relations in the New Millennium.” Journal of East Asian Studies 9, 3: 369–398.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J., Mutz, Diana C., and Huckfeldt, Robert. 1996. “Persuasion in Context: The Multilevel Structure of Economic Evaluations.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change , ed. Mutz, Diana C., Sniderman, Paul M., and Brody, Richard A., 249–266. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Barabas, Jason. 2000. “Foreign Policy Gaps Between Citizens and Leaders.” International Studies Quarterly 44, 3: 339–364.Google Scholar
RePass, David E. 1971. “Issue Salience and Party Choice.” American Political Science Review 65, 2: 389–400.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32, 3: 737–757.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Glaser, James M., and Griffin, Robert. 1990. “Information and Electoral Choice.” In Information and Democratic Processes , ed. Ferejohn, John A. and Kuklinski, James H., 117–135. Urbana: University of Illinois Press Google Scholar
Tahk, Alexander, Krosnick, Jon, Lacy, Dean, and Lowe, Laura. 2010. “Do the News Media Shape How Americans Think About Politics? New Statistical Procedures Cast New Light on an Old Hypothesis.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September.Google Scholar
Taiwan Election and Democratization Study (TEDS). 2008. TEDS survey data available at http://www.tedsnet.org/cubekm2/front/bin/home.phtml.Google Scholar
Trading Economics. 2011. Taiwan GDP Growth Rate. Available at www.tradingeconomics.com/taiwan/gdp-growth (accessed August 7, 2011).Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1985a. “Proposal for the Measurement of Political Information.” Report to the NES Board of Overseers, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. In The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion , ed. Zaller, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1985b. “Analysis of Information Items in the 1985 NES Pilot Study.” Report to the NES Board of Overseers, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. In The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion , ed. Zaller, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar