Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:18:32.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Performance of Rational Voter Models in Recent Presidential Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Carroll B. Foster
Carroll B. Foster*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan-Dearborn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In An Economic Theory of Democracy, Downs hypothesized that rational, utility-maximizing citizens would calculate the benefits from voting (as opposed to abstaining altogether) and then vote if this expected benefit exceeded voting cost. This hypothesis is logically derived from economic principles of rational behavior, but is counterintuitive: even if the utility increment is plausibly large, the probability of casting a pivotal, tie-breaking vote in any sizable polity is minute. Hence the expected benefit will be less than the time cost of voting, and no rational person will vote. Nevertheless, a number of statistical studies have found that voter turnout does respond to differences in the probability of casting a decisive vote, even though that probability may be small.

This article uses data gathered at the state level from the 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980 general elections to reestimate the relationship between voter turnout and the probable closeness of the election. Pooled data Least Squares Dummy Variable (LSDV) regressions are used whenever preliminary tests indicate that such pooling is permissible. The empirical results suggest that the relationship between closeness and turnout is weak, unstable, or nonexistent in all of the models tested.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 678 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

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

Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F.A modest proposal for election reform. Public Choice, 1976, 28, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J. H.Some problems in testing two rational models of participation. American Journal of Political Science, 1976, 20, 713–733.Google Scholar
Banzhaf, J. F.One man, 3.312 votes: A mathematical analysis of the electoral college. Villanova Law Review, 1968, 13, 304–335.Google Scholar
Barry, B. M.Sociologists, economists and democracy. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar
Barzel, Y., & Silberberg, E.Is the act of voting rational? Public Choice, 1973, 16, 51–58.Google Scholar
Black, J. H.The probability-choice perspective in voter decision making models. Public Choice, 1980, 35, 565–574.Google Scholar
Brams, S. J.The presidential election game. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Brunk, G. G.The impact of rational participation models on voting attitudes. Public Choice, 1980, 35, 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cebula, R. J., & Murphy, D. R.The electoral college and voter participation rates: An exploratory note. Public Choice, 1980, 35, 185–190.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, G., & Rothschild, M.A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. Journal of Economic Theory, 1981, 25, 152–162.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. Presidential elections since 1789 (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
Crain, W. M., & Deaton, T. H.A note on political participation as consumption behavior. Public Choice, 1977, 32, 131–135.Google Scholar
Crain, W. M., Deaton, T. H., & Tollison, R. D.Macro-economic determinants of the vote in presidential elections. Public Finance Quarterly, 1978, 6, 427–438.Google Scholar
DeNardo, J.Turnout and the vote: The joke's on the Democrats. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 406–420.Google Scholar
Downs, A.An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Fair, R. C.The effect of economic events on votes for president. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1978, 60, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P.The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review, 1974, 68, 525–536.Google Scholar
Filer, J. E., & Kenny, L. W.Voter turnout and the benefits of voting. Public Choice, 1980, 55, 575–585.Google Scholar
Foster, C. B. A note on modeling the probability of a tied election with the hypergeometric distribution. Economics Working Paper No. 25, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 11 1983.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S.Why do high income people participate more in politics. Public Choice, 1971, 11, 101–105.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S., Russell, K. P., & Fraser, J.Political participation and income level: An exchange. Public Choice, 1971, 13, 113–122.Google Scholar
Hinich, M. J.Voting as an act of contribution. Public Choice, 1981, 36, 135–140.Google Scholar
Kau, J. B., & Rubin, P. H.The electoral college and the rational vote. Public Choice, 1976, 27, 101–107.Google Scholar
Kau, J. B., & Rubin, P. H.The electoral college and the rational vote: A correction. Public Choice, 1977, 29, 155–156.Google Scholar
Key, V. O.Southern politics. New York: Knopf, 1950.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Petrocik, J. R., & Enokson, S. N.Voter turnout among the American states: Systematic and individual components. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 107–123.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S.Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.Google Scholar
Margolis, H.Probability of a tie election. Public Choice, 1977, 31, 135–138.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L.Econometric models and economic forecasts (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C.A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 1968, 62, 25–42.Google Scholar
Rubinfeld, D. L.On the economics of voter turnout in local school elections. Public Choice, 1980, 35, 315–331.Google Scholar
Schroeder, L. D., & Sjoquist, D. L.The rational voter: An analysis of two Atlanta referenda on rapid transit. Public Choice, 1978, 33, 27–44.Google Scholar
Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M.A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 1954, 48, 787–792.Google Scholar
Silberman, J., & Durden, G.The rational behavior theory of voter participation: The evidence from congressional elections. Public Choice, 1975, 23, 101–108.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. P.Economic competition and political competition. Public Choice, 1972, 13, 91–106.Google Scholar
Straffin, P. D. Jr.Homogeneity, independence, and power indices. Public Choice, 1977, 30, 107–118.Google Scholar
Theil, H.Principles of econometrics. New York: Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
Thompson, F.Closeness counts in horseshoes and dancing … and elections. Public Choice, 1982, 38, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollison, R. D., & Willett, T. D.Some simple economics of voting and not voting. Public Choice, 1973, 16, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, G.Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967.Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of population: 1970, subject reports. Persons of Spanish origin (Final Report PV(2)-1C). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1980 census of population and housing. United States Summary: Final Population and Housing Unit Counts (Advance Report PHC80- V-l). Washington, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Census. Statistical abstract of the United States 1980 [etc.]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, various.Google Scholar
Verba, S., & Nie, N. E.Participation in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Welch, W. P.Money and votes: A simultaneous equation model. Public Choice, 1981, 36, 209–234.Google Scholar
Wolfram, G. L., & Foster, C. B.The electoral college and voter participation rates: Reexamination of the Cebula-Murphy hypothesis. Presented to the Public Choice Society, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1981.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.