Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:44:52.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of social networks and homophily on correct voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2014

ALISON WATTS
ALISON WATTS*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is empirical evidence suggesting that a person's family, friends, or social ties influence who a person votes for. Sokhey & McClurg (2012) find that as political disagreement in a person's social network increases, then a person is less likely to vote correctly. We develop a model where voters have different favorite policies and wish to vote correctly for the candidate whose favorite policy is closest to their own. Voters have beliefs about each candidate's favorite policy which may or may not be correct. Voters update their beliefs about political candidates based on who their conservative and liberal social ties are supporting. We find that if everyone's social network consists only of those most like themselves, then the conditions needed for correct voting to be stable are fairly weak; thus political agreement in one's social network facilitates correct voting. We also give conditions under which correct voting is stable for networks exhibiting homophily and for networks exhibiting random social interactions.

Keywords

social networkscorrect votinghomophily
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 90 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & ParandehGheibi, A. (2010). Spread of (mis)information in social networks. Games and Economic Behavior, 70 (2) 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. S. (1996). Information aggregation, rationality, and the condorcet Jury theorem. The American Political Science Review, 90 (1) 34–45.Google Scholar
Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1 (112), 85–114.Google Scholar
Börgers, T. (2004). Costly voting. The American Economic Review, 94 (1) 57-66.Google Scholar
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2009). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica, 77 (4) 1003–1045.Google Scholar
Currarini, S., & Vega Redondo, F. (2011). A simple model of homophily in social networks. Mimeo: European University Institute.Google Scholar
DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69 (345) 118–121.Google Scholar
Evren, Ö. (2012). Altruism and voting: A large-turnout result that does not rely on civic duty or cooperative behavior. Journal of Economic Theory, 147 2124–2157.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T. J. (2004). Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18 (1) 99–112.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T., & Sandroni, A. (2006). A theory of participation in elections. The American Economic Review, 96 (4) 1271–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galeotti, A., & Goyal, S. (2010). The law of the few. American Economic Review, 100 (4) 1468–1492.Google Scholar
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2012). How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (3) 1287–1338.Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2010). Sincere versus sophisticated voting in congress: theory and evidence. Journal of Politics, 72 (1) 60–73.Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2013). Sincere versus sophisticated voting when legislators vote sequentially. Social Choice and Welfare, 40 745–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O. (2011). An overview of social networks and economic applications. In Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., & Jackson, M. O. (Eds.), The handbook of social economics, Vol. 1A. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. O., & López-Pintado, D. (2012). “Diffusion and contagion in networks with heterogeneous agents and homophily. Network Science, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Joyner, J., & Kao, G. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial homophily. Social Science Quarterly, 81 (3) 810–825.Google Scholar
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115 (2) 405–450.Google Scholar
Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. K. (2009). Is mandatory voting better than voluntary voting? Games and Economic Behavior, 66, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, V., & Morgan, J. (2012). Voluntary voting: Costs and benefits. Journal of Economic Theory, 147 2083–2123.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. Presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52 (2) 395–411.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91 (3) 410–424.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The People's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). “Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In Berger, M. (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
McMurray, J. C. (2012). Aggregating information by voting: The wisdom of the experts versus the wisdom of the masses. The Review of Economic Studies, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). “Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 415–444.Google Scholar
Mudde, C., & March, L. (2005). What's left of the radical left? The European radical left since 1989: Decline and mutation. Comparative European Politics, 3 (1), 23–49.Google Scholar
Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102 (1) 49–57.Google Scholar
Oesch, D. (2008). Explaining workers' support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland. International Political Science Review, 29 (3) 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydgren, J. (2007). The Sociology of the Radical right. Annual Review of Sociology, 33 241–62.Google Scholar
Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2012). Social networks and correct voting. The Journal of Politics, 74 (3) 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolitzky, A. (2009). Fully sincere voting. Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 720–735.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. (1988). Condorcet's theory of voting. The American Political Science Review, 82 (4) 1231–1244.Google Scholar