Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:02:17.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: a conjoint experiment in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2018

Yusaku Horiuchi ,
Daniel M. Smith  and
Teppei Yamamoto
Yusaku Horiuchi*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Dartmouth College, 204 Silsby Hall, HB 6108, Hanover, NH 03755
Daniel M. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Teppei Yamamoto*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-470, Cambridge, MA 02142
*
*Corresponding author. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Corresponding author. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Corresponding author. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although politicians’ personal attributes are an important component of elections and representation, few studies have rigorously investigated which attributes are most relevant in shaping voters’ preferences for politicians, or whether these preferences vary across different electoral system contexts. We investigate these questions with a conjoint survey experiment using the case of Japan’s mixed-member bicameral system. We find that the attributes preferred by voters are not entirely consistent with the observed attributes of actual politicians. Moreover, voters’ preferences do not vary when asked to consider representation under different electoral system contexts, whereas the observed attributes of politicians do vary across these contexts. These findings point to the role of factors beyond voters’ sincere preferences, such as parties’ recruitment strategies, the effect of electoral rules on the salience of the personal vote, and the availability of different types of politicians, in determining the nature of representation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 75 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2018 

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

Aguilar, R, Cunow, S Desposato, S (2015) Choice Sets, Gender, and Candidate Choice in Brazil. Electoral Studies 39, 230–242.Google Scholar
Anzia, SF Berry, CR (2011) The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen? American Journal of Political Science 55(3):478–493.Google Scholar
Banducci, SA, Donovan, T Karp, JA (2004) Minority Representation, Empowerment, and Participation. The Journal of Politics 66(2):534–556.Google Scholar
Bratton, KA Ray, LP (2002) Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46(2):428–437.Google Scholar
Cain, BE, Ferejohn, JA Fiorina, MP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, R Cowley, P (2014) What Voters Want: Reactions to Candidate Characteristics in a Survey Experiment. Political Studies 62(4):745–765.Google Scholar
Carey, JM Shugart, MS (1995) Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14, 417–440.Google Scholar
Carnes, N Lupu, N (2016) Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class. American Political Science Review 110(4):832–844.Google Scholar
Carozzi, F Repetto, L (2016) Sending the Pork Home: Birth Town Bias in Transfers to Italian Municipalities. Journal of Public Economics 134, 42–52.Google Scholar
Carson, JL, Engstrom, EJ Roberts, JM (2007) Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review 101(2):289–301.Google Scholar
Dolan, K (2010) The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates. Political Behavior 32(1):69–88.Google Scholar
Fiva, JH Smith, DM (2017) Local Candidates and Voter Mobilization: Evidence from Historical Two-Round Elections in Norway. Electoral Studies 45, 130–140.Google Scholar
Franchino, F Zucchini, F (2015) Voting in a Multi-Dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3(2):221–241.Google Scholar
Grofman, B (2005) Comparisons Among Electoral Systems: Distinguishing Between Localism and Candidate-Centered Politics. Electoral Studies 24(1):735–740.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J (2012) Entropy Balancing: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies. Political Analysis 20(1):25–46.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multi-Dimensional Preferences Via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22(1):1–30.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D Yamamoto, T (2015) Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(8):2395–2400.Google Scholar
Hall, AB Snyder, JM Jr. (2015) How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?. Political Science Research and Methods 3(3):493–514.Google Scholar
Hirano, S (2006) Electoral Institutions, Hometowns, and Favored Minorities: Evidence from Japan’s Electoral Reforms. World Politics 59(1):51–82.Google Scholar
Horiuchi, Y, Smith, DM Yamamoto, T (2018) Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election. Political Analysis 26(2):190–209.Google Scholar
Huddy, L Terkildsen, N (1993) Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37, 119–147.Google Scholar
Iversen, T Rosenbluth, F (2010) Women, Work, and Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, GC (1989) Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-86. The American Political Science Review 83(3):773–793.Google Scholar
Moser, RG Scheiner, E (2012) Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary Across New and Established Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, SR, Scheiner, E Thies, MF (2012) The End of LDP Dominance and the Rise of Party-Oriented Politics in Japan. Journal of Japanese Studies 38(2):353–376.Google Scholar
Rule, W Zimmerman, JF (eds) (1994) Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, K (2002) Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice. American Journal of Political Science 46(1):20–34.Google Scholar
Scheiner, E (2006) Democracy Without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-Party Dominant State. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, MS (2001) Electoral “Efficiency” and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems. Electoral Studies 20(1):173–193.Google Scholar
Shugart, MS, Valdini, ME Suominen, K (2005) Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators Under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49(2):437–449.Google Scholar
Smith, DM (2018) Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited Incumbency Advantage in Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tavits, M (2010) Effect of Local Ties on Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour the Case of Estonia. Party Politics 16(2):215–235.Google Scholar
Thames, FC Williams, MS (2010) Incentives for Personal Votes and Women’s Representation in Legislatures. Comparative Political Studies 43(12):1575–1600.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Horiuchi et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KCIADO
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Horiuchi et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Horiuchi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.6 MB