Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:22:53.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressiveness and Voting Decision: New Evidence from the Korean Parliamentary Election*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

MAN-SOO JOO  and
SUNGHO YUN
MAN-SOO JOO
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Hanyang University, Ansan, [email protected]
SUNGHO YUN
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Hanyang University, Ansan, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the expressive view of voting, a voter derives expressive utility from casting a vote. We present two possible sources of expressive utility: social interaction with voters having the same political preferences, and interestingness of the election. First, it has been suggested that a voter's expressive utility may increase when there are more voters having the same political preference. We extend this line of study and test the hypothesis that a voter's expressive utility increases as the number of voters having the same political preferences increases in the local community, where interaction occurs more frequently with others than it does with others in distant communities. Second, we propose and test the other hypothesis, that voters’ expressive utility is larger when the election is more interesting. Using 2008 parliamentary election data from Korea, where the election consists of both 245 single-member districts and only one nationwide district for proportional representatives, we find supporting evidence for these two arguments: the turnout rate is significantly and positively related to the share of proportional representation votes for the largest party in each single-member district; the turnout rate is also significantly and positively related to the number of polls for single-member district election conducted by major broadcasting companies, which we use as a proxy variable for interestingness of the election.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 2: Quality of Life and Environmentalism in ASEAN , June 2014 , pp. 259 - 274
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.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Imho Kang and four anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions and comments.

References

Abrams, S., Iversen, T., and Soskice, D. (2011), ‘Informal Social Networks and Rational Voting’, British Journal of Political Science, 41: 229–57.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. H. (1997), ‘When is it Rational to Vote?’, in Mueller, Dennis C. (ed.), Perspectives on Public Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373–90.Google Scholar
Ashworth, J., Geys, B., and Heyndels, B. (2006), ‘Everyone Likes a Winner: An Empirical Test of the Effects of Electoral Closeness on Turnout in a Context of Expressive Voting’, Public Choice, 128: 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. and Carty, R. K. (1990), ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?’, European Journal of Political Research, 18: 167–81.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J. M. (1984), ‘Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives’, American Behavioral Scientist, 28: 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Hamlin, A. (1998), ‘Expressive Voting and Electoral Equilibrium’, Public Choice, 95: 149–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, S. (2007), ‘Bandwagons and Momentum in Sequential Voting’, Review of Economic Studies, 74: 653–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, M. and Guerette, S. (1992), ‘An experimental Study of Expressive Voting’, Public Choice, 73: 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cebula, R. J. (2004), ‘Expressiveness and Voting: Alternative Evidence’, Atlantic Economic Journal, 32: 216–21.Google Scholar
Copeland, C. and Laband, D. N. (2002), ‘Expressiveness and Voting’, Public Choice, 110: 351–63.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. and Munger, M. C. (1989), ‘Closeness, Expenditures and Turnout in the 1982 US House Election’, American Political Science Review, 83: 217–30.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Filer, J. E., Kenny, L. W., and Morton, R. B. (1993), ‘Redistribution, Income and Voting’, American Journal of Political Science, 37: 63–87.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1976), ‘The Voting Decision: Instrumental and Expressive Aspects’, Journal of Politics, 21: 601–25.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J. (1996), ‘A Further Experimental Study of Expressive Voting’, Public Choice, 88: 171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J. H. (2005), ‘Turnout in a Small World’, in Zuckerman, A. S. (ed.), The Social Logic of Politics, Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press, pp. 269–88.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., and Larimer, C. W. (2008), ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment’, American Political Science Review, 102: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geys, B. (2006a), ‘Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-level Research’, Electoral Studies, 25, 637–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geys, B. (2006b), ‘‘Rational’ Theories of Voter Turnout: A Review’, Political Studies Review, 4, 16–35.Google Scholar
Glazer, A. (2008), ‘Voting to Anger and to Please Others’, Public Choice, 134: 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, B. M. and Helpman, E. (2001), Special Interest Politics, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamlin, A. and Jenning, C. (2011), ‘Expressive Political Behavior: Foundations, Scope and Implications’, British Journal of Political Science, 41: 645–70.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. (2010), ‘Expressive Behavior in Economics and Politics’, European Journal of Political Economy, 26: 403–18.Google Scholar
Hoffman-Martinot, V. (1994), ‘Voter Turnout in French Municipal Elections’, in Lopez-Nieto, L. (ed.), Local Elections in Europe, Barcelona: Institut de ciènces politiques i socials, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J. (1991), ‘Discussant Effects on Vote Choice: Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence’, Journal of Politics, 53: 122–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. and Sprague, J. (1995), Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, R. (2002), ‘Buying a Lottery Ticket to Help the Poor: Altruism, Civic Duty and Self-interest in the Decision to Vote’, Rationality and Society, 14: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. and Hudson, J. (2000), ‘Civic Duty and Expressive Voting: Is Virtue its Own Reward?’, KYKLOS, 53: 3–16.Google Scholar
Kan, K. and Yang, C. C. (2001), ‘On Expressive Voting: Evidence from the 1988 US Presidential Election’, Public Choice, 108: 295–312.Google Scholar
Kenny, C. B. (1992), ‘Political Participation and Effects from the Social Environment’, American Journal of Political Science, 36: 259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgässner, G. and Schulz, T. (2005), ‘Expected Closeness or Mobilisation: Why Do Voters Go to the Polls? Empirical Results for Switzerland, 1981–1999’, CESifo working papers, No. 1387, Centre for Economic Studies, Munich.Google Scholar
Knack, S. (1992), ‘Civic Norms, Social Sanctions, and Voter Turnout’, Rationality and Society, 4: 133–56.Google Scholar
Lang, K. and Lang, G. E. (1966), ‘The Mass Media and Voting’, in Berelson, B. and Janowitz, M. (ed.), Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, New York, Free Press, pp. 455–72.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2005), ‘Choosing Alone? The Social Network Basis of Modern Political Choice’, in Zuckerman, A. S. (ed.), The Social Logic of Politics, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp. 132–51.Google Scholar
Mori, Y. (2012), ‘Voter Turnout and the Principle of “One Person, One Vote”: Empirical Evidence from the Constituency Freeze in India’, Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series, 257, Hitotsubashi University.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (2003), Public Choice III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, D. W. (2008), ‘Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments’, American Political Science Review, 102: 49–57.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2000), ‘A Virtuous Circle?: The Impact of Political Communications in Post-Industrial Democracies’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Polotical Studies Association of the UK, London, 10–13 April 2000.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. and Ordeshook, P. C. (1968), ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 62: 25–42.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. J. (1976), ‘Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of “the Selling of the President”’, American Political Science Review, 70: 409–32.Google Scholar
Rotemberg, J. J. (2009), ‘Attitude-Dependent Altruism, Turnout and Voting’, Public Choice, 140: 223–44.Google Scholar
Schuessler, A. A. (2000), ‘Expressive Voting’, Rationality and Society, 12 (1): 87–119.Google Scholar
Shachar, R. and Nalebuff, B., (1999), ‘Follow the Leader: Theory and Evidence on Political Participation’, American Economic Review, 89: 525–47.Google Scholar
Stein, R. and Dillingham, G. (2004), ‘Political Participation in an Urbanized Society’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 2–6 September 2004.Google Scholar
Tyran, J.-R. (2004), ‘Voting When Money and Morals Conflict: An Experimental Test of Expressive Voting’, Journal of Public Economics, 88: 1645–64.Google Scholar
Uhlander, C. J. (1989), ‘Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups’, American Journal of Political Science, 33: 390–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, A. S. (2005), The Social Logic of Politics, Philadelphia PA, Temple University Press.Google Scholar