Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:37:19.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Electoral Systems and Strategic Voting (Laboratory Election Experiments)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Rebecca B. Morton
Affiliation:
New York University
Kenneth C. Williams
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

It can be complicated to attempt to understand how election mechanisms and other variables surrounding an election determine outcomes. This is because the variables of interest are often intertwined; thus, it is difficult to disentangle them to determine the cause and effect that variables have on each other. Formal models of elections are used to disentangle variables so that cause and effect can be isolated. Laboratory election experiments are conducted so that the causes and effects of these isolated variables from these formal models can be empirically measured. These types of experiments are conducted within a single location, where it is possible for a researcher to control many of the variables of the election environment and thus observe the behavior of subjects under different electoral situations. The elections are often carried out in computer laboratories via computer terminals, and the communication between the researcher and subjects occurs primarily through a computer interface. In these experiments, subjects are assigned as either voters or candidates, and, in some cases, they are given both roles. Voters are rewarded based on a utility function that assigns a preference for a particular candidate or party. Candidates are typically rewarded based on whether they win the election, but sometimes their rewards depend on the actions they take after the election.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2004. “The Effect of Candidate Quality on Electoral Equilibrium: An Experimental Study.” American Political Science Review 90: 34–45.Google Scholar
Battaglini, Marco, Morton, Rebecca B., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2007. “Efficiency, Equity, and Timing in Voting Mechanisms.” American Political Science Review 101: 409–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglini, Marco, Morton, Rebecca B., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2009. “The Swing Voter's Curse in the Laboratory.” Review of Economic Studies 77: 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model, Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coate, Stephen 2004. “Pareto-Improving Campaign Finance Policy.” American Economic Review 94: 628–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Stephen. 2004. “The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior.” Political Analysis 12: 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Kenneth E., McKelvey, Richard D., Ordeshook, Peter, and Williams, Kenneth C.. 1987. “Retrospective Voting: An Experimental Study.” Public Choice 53: 101–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Kenneth E., Ordeshook, Peter, and Williams, Kenneth C.. 1989. “The Rationally Uninformed Electorate: Some Experimental Evidence.” Public Choice 60: 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1975. “Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” In Handbook of Political Science, eds. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 75–169.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Sugato, Randazzo, Kirk A., Sheehan, Reginald S., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2008. “Coordinated Voting in Sequential and Simultaneous Elections: Some Experimental Results.” Experimental Economics 11: 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Sugato, and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2002. “A Principal-Agent Model of Elections with Novice Incumbents.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14: 409–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1996. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” American Economic Review 86: 408–24.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2006. “A Theory of Participation in Elections with Ethical Voters.” American Economic Review 964: 1271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, Robert, Myerson, Roger B., Rietz, Thomas, and Weber, Robert. 1993. “An Experimental Study on Coordination in Multi-Candidate Elections: The Importance of Polls and Election Histories.” Social Choice and Welfare 10: 223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, Robert, Roger, B.Myerson, Thomas Rietz, and Weber, Robert. 1996. “An Experimental Study of Voting Rules and Polls in a Three-Way Election.” International Journal of Game Theory 25: 355–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, Feddersen, Timothy, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2009. “Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.” American Political Science Review 103: 175–92.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, Rebecca, B. Morton, and Thomas Rietz. 1998. “Minority Representation in Multimember Districts.” American Political Science Review 92: 127–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 862–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosser, Jens, and Schram, Arthur. 2006. “Neighborhood Information Exchange and Voter Participation: An Experimental Study.” American Political Science Review 110: 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houser, Daniel, Morton, Rebecca B., and Stratmann, Thomas. 2008. “Turned Off or Turned Out? Campaign Advertising, Information, and Voting.” Working Paper 1004, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
Houser, Daniel, and Stratmann, Thomas. 2008. “Selling Favors in the Lab: Experiments on Campaign Finance Reform.” Public Choice 136: 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, David. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, John O. 1984. “The Pure Theory of Large Two-Candidate Elections.” Public Choice 44: 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, David K., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2007. “The Paradox of Voter Participation: A Laboratory Study.” American Political Science Review 101: 143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londregan, John, and Romer, Thomas. 1993. “Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote.” In Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, eds. Barnett, William A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Schofield, Norman J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 355–78.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1982. “Two-Candidate Elections without Majority Rule Equilibria.” Simulation and Games 3: 311–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1985a. “Elections with Limited Information: A Fulfilled Expectations Model Using Contemporaneous Poll and Endorsement Data as Informational Sources.” Journal of Economic Theory 36: 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1985b. “Sequential Elections with Limited Information.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 480–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. 1987. “A Group Majority Voting Model of Public Good Provision.” Social Choice and Welfare 4: 117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. 1991. “Groups in Rational Turnout Models.” American Journal of Political Science 3: 758–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Rietz, Thomas A.. 2008. “Majority Requirements and Minority Representation.” New York University Annual Survey of American Law 63: 691–726.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Tyran, Jean-Robert. 2008. “Let the Experts Decide: Asymmetric Information, Abstention and Coordination in Standing Committees.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 1999. “Information Asymmetries and Simultaneous versus Sequential Voting.” American Political Science Review 93: 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2001. Learning by Voting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Robert B., and Weber, Robert J.. 1993. “A Theory of Voting Equilibria.” American Political Science Review 87: 102–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterbeek, Hessel, Sloof, Randolph, and Kulien, Gijs. 2004. “Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Experimental Economics 7: 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. “Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty.” American Political Science Review 79: 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietz, Thomas A., Myerson, Robert B., and Weber, Robert J.. 1998. “Campaign Finance Levels as Coordinating Signal in Three-Way Experimental Elections.” Economics and Politics 10: 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, Arthur, and Sonnemans, Joep. 1996a. “Voter Turnout as a Participation Game: An Experimental Investigation.” International Journal of Game Theory 25: 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, Arthur, and Sonnemans, Joep. 1996b. “Why People Vote: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Economic Psychology 17: 417–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, Arthur, and Winden, Frans. 1991. “Why People Vote: Free Riding and the Production and Consumption of Social Pressure.” Journal of Economic Psychology 12: 575–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Vernon L. 1976. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” American Economic Review 66: 274–79.Google Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole Jean. 1989. “Relational Goods and Participation: Incorporating Sociability into a Theory of Rational Action.” Public Choice 62: 253–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1977. “Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model.” Journal of Economic Theory 14: 180–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×