Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:33:54.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affinity, Antipathy and Political Participation: How Our Concern For Others Makes Us Vote

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2010

Peter John Loewen
Peter John Loewen*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Peter John Loewen, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St George St., Toronto, ON M5S 3G3. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Some citizens differ in their levels of concern for the supporters of various parties. I demonstrate how such concerns can motivate citizens to vote. I first present a simple formal model that incorporates concern for others and election benefits to explain the decision to vote. By predicting substantial turnout, this model overcomes the “paradox of participation.” I then verify the model empirically. I utilize a series dictator games in an online survey of more than 2000 Canadians to measure the concern of individuals for other partisans. I show how the preferences revealed in these games can predict the decision to vote in the face of several conventional controls. Taken together, the formal model and empirical results generate a more fulsome and satisfactory account of the decision to vote than an explanation which relies solely on duty.

Résumé. Les citoyens ne se préoccupent pas tous des partisans des divers partis politiques. Je démontre comment de telles préoccupations peuvent motiver les citoyens à participer aux élections. Je présente d'abord un modèle formel qui explique la décision de voter en intégrant les préoccupations à l'égard des autres électeurs et les bénéfices associés à une élection. En prédisant une part substantielle de la participation, ce modèle surmonte le paradoxe de la participation électorale. Ensuite, le modèle est vérifié empiriquement. J'emploie à cette fin une série de jeux du dictateur insérés dans une enquête menée en ligne auprès de 2000 Canadiens afin de mesurer leur degré de préoccupation à l'égard des autres partisans. Je montre comment les préférences révélées dans ces jeux peuvent prédire la décision de voter. Ensemble, le modèle formel et les résultats empiriques produisent une explication plus éloquente et plus satisfaisante de la décision de voter lors d'une élection que les explications qui s'appuient seulement sur le sens du devoir.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 661 - 687
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

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

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H. and Rhode, David W.. 2006. Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 246–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, James and Miller, John. 2002. “Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism.” Econometrica 70(2): 737–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1978. Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benz, Matthias and Meier, Stephan. 2008. “Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations.” Experimental Economics 11(3): 268–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bibby, Reginald W. 1990. Fragmented Gods. Toronto: Stoddart.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2000. To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André. 2005. “Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Research 38(4): 821–40.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Blake, Donald and Dion, Stéphane. 1993. “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Bodet, Marc-André. 2006. “How Do Voters Form Expectations about the Parties' Chances of Winning the Election?” Social Science Quarterly 87(3): 477–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Andre, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nevitte, Neil and Nadeau, Richard. 2004. “Where does turnout decline come from?” European Journal of Political Research 43(2): 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengill, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2002. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry, Verba, Sidney and Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” British Journal of Political Science 89(2): 271–94.Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. and Hogarth, Robin M.. 1999. “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1–3): 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Canadian Press. 2006. “Debate Transcripts.” Transcript of 2006 Canadian federal leaders debate. www.theglobeandmail.com/generated/realtime/specialDecision2006.html.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Jeffery, Verhoogen, Erik and Burks, Stephen. 2005. “The Effect of Stakes in Distribution Experiments.” Economics Letters 86(2): 393–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, Gary and Rothchild, Michael. 1981. “A Note on the Probability of Casting a Decisive Vote.” Journal of Economic Theory 25(1): 152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, Todd L., Frykblom, Peter and Shogren, Jason F.. 2002. “Hardnose the Dictator.” The American Economic Review 92(4): 1218–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Jenson, Jane, LeDuc, Lawrence and Pammett, Jon. 1979. Political Choice in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryeison.Google Scholar
Dawes, Christopher T., Loewen, Peter John and Fowler, James H.. 2008. “Social Preferences and Political Participation.” Working Paper. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Edlin, Aaron, Gelman, Andrew and Kaplan, Noah. 2007. “Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote To Improve the Well-Being of Others.” Rationality and Society 19(3): 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, ed. 1999. The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1974. “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” American Political Science Review 68(2): 525–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. “Altruism and Turnout.” Journal of Politics 68: 647–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H. and Kam, Cindy. 2007. “Beyond the Self: Altruism, Social Identity, and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 69: 813–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Katz, Jonathan N. and Bafumi, Joseph. 2004. “Standard Power Voting Indexes Don't Work: An Empirical Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 34(4): 657–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazer, Amihai. 2008. “Voting to anger and to please others.” Public Choice 134(3–4): 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven. 2004. “Social Identity Theory and Party Identification.” Social Science Quarterly 85(1): 136–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Eizabeth, McCabe, Kevin and Smith, Vernon L.. 1996. “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games.” The American Economic Review 86(3): 653–60.Google Scholar
Hout, Mike, Brooks, Clem and Manza, Jeff. 1993. “The Persistence of Classes in Post-Industrial Societies.” International Sociology 8(3): 259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert and Sprague, John. 1992. “Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass.” The American Political Science Review 86(1): 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary and Zeng, Langche. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9(2): 137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H.. 1968. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDuc, Lawrence. 1984. “Canada: The Politics of Stable Dealignment.” In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment, ed. Dalton, Russell J., Beck, Paul and Flanagan, Scott. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992a. “Individual and Systemic Influences on Turnout: Who Votes? 1984.” The Journal of Politics 54(3): 718–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992b. “Socioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout, 1964–1988: The Voters Remain the Same.” The American Political Science Review 86(3): 725–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Peter John. 2008. “Dictators and Purses: Altruism and Support for Public Spending.” Working paper. Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mueller, Dennis C. 1989. Public Choice II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mulligan, Casey B. and Hunter, Charles G.. 2003. “The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote.” Public Choice 116(1–2): 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G. 1976. “Costs of Voting and Nonvoting.” Public Choice 27: 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62(1): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven and Hansen, John Mark. 1994. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Strate, John M., Parrish, Charles J., Elder, Charles D. and Ford, Coit. 1989. “Life Span Civic Development and Voting Participation.” The American Political Science Review 83(2): 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. “Social Categorization, Social Identity, and Social Comparisons.” In Differentiation Between Social Groups, ed. Tajfel, Henri. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole J. 1986. “Political Participation, Rational Actors, and Rationality: A New Approach.” Political Psychology 7: 551–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole J. 1989a. “Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups.” American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 390–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole J. 1989b. “‘Relational Goods’ and Participation: Incorporating Sociability into a Theory of Rational Action.” Public Choice 62(3): 253–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole J. 1999. “What the Downsian Voter Weighs: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits of Action.” In Information, Participation and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wells, Paul. 2006. Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism. Toronto: Douglas Gibson Books.Google Scholar
Whitt, Sam and Wilson, Rick K.. 2007. “The Dictator Game, Fairness, and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia.” American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 655–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcoxon, Frank. 1945. “Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods.” Biometrics Bulletin 1(6): 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar