Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:14:58.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thermostatic Voting: Presidential Elections in Light of New Policy Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2012

Jørgen Bølstad
Jørgen Bølstad
Affiliation:
Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing studies imply a model of “thermostatic voting”—a phenomenon characterized by negative feedback from government policy to election outcomes, suggesting that a party's success in setting policy diminishes its electoral prospects. This phenomenon could give politicians an incentive to constrain the fulfillment of public demands, which would conflict with the notion of electoral accountability, which also forms part of the theoretical framework in question. This article addresses this paradox and provides new data that expand an existing time series of American policy liberalism. Employing the new data, the article identifies thermostatic voting in American presidential elections, but in light of the analysis, certain empirical features are also identified that reduce the possible incentive to withhold promised policy changes.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 44 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

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

Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Best, Samuel J. 1999. “The Sampling Problem in Measuring Policy Mood: An Alternative Solution.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 721–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1970. “Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, E. R.. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Stimson, James A.. 1995. “The Dynamic Structure of Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 57 (3): 630–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, Karl. 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe (Macmillan).Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Federal Election Commission. 2009. “2008 Official Presidential General Election Results.” www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf (August 23).Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 1997. “The Responsive Public: Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Integration.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9 (3): 347–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravall, José María, and Sánchez-Cuenca, Ignacio, eds. 2007. Controlling Governments: Voters, Institutions, and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2008. “Important laws enacted by the 108th Congress during 2003–04.” http://pantheon.yale.edu/~dmayhew/dataset_DWG04_laws_2003_2004.doc (June 28).Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2009a. “Important laws enacted by the 109th Congress during 2005–06.” http://pantheon.yale.edu/~dmayhew/dataset_DWG04_laws_2005_2006.doc (June 25).Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2009b. “Important laws enacted by the 110th Congress during 2007–08.” http://pantheon.yale.edu/~dmayhew/dataset_DWG_laws_2007-2008.doc (June 25).Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard, eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 531–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “Opinion–Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 665–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America. Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999a. “Party Government and Responsiveness.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, ed. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., and Manin, B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999b. Public Opinion in America. Moods, Cycles, and Swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinions Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1994. “Opinion and Policy: A Global View.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27 (1): 29–34.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2008. “Table 384. Vote Cast for President, by Major Political Party: 1948 to 2004.” www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0384.xls (July 15).Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 2002. “Partisanship and Incumbency in Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 24 (4): 339–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of U.S. Spending on Defense.” British Journal of Political Science 26 (1): 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy.” Journal of Politics 66 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar