Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Quarterly Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2020-04-08 DOI:10.1561/100.00018027a
Anthony Fowler
{"title":"Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?","authors":"Anthony Fowler","doi":"10.1561/100.00018027a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many political scientists believe that partisanship is an arbitrary psychological attachment that exerts a drug-like effect on voters' decisions. An implication is that voters don't care much about policy or government performance, and instead, elections are just a roll call of intoxicated partisans. I review and reassess the evidence for this view, concluding that there is no compelling evidence to support it. For many empirical tests, partisan intoxication and policy voting are observationally equivalent. Rare opportunities to partially distinguish between these possibilities like the southern realignment suggest that policy voting is more prevalent. When I conduct new tests utilizing survey experiments about hypothetical candidates, the weight of the evidence favors policy voting.","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"141-179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00018027a","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018027a","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

Many political scientists believe that partisanship is an arbitrary psychological attachment that exerts a drug-like effect on voters' decisions. An implication is that voters don't care much about policy or government performance, and instead, elections are just a roll call of intoxicated partisans. I review and reassess the evidence for this view, concluding that there is no compelling evidence to support it. For many empirical tests, partisan intoxication and policy voting are observationally equivalent. Rare opportunities to partially distinguish between these possibilities like the southern realignment suggest that policy voting is more prevalent. When I conduct new tests utilizing survey experiments about hypothetical candidates, the weight of the evidence favors policy voting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
党派陶醉还是政策投票?
许多政治学家认为,党派之争是一种武断的心理依恋,会对选民的决定产生类似毒品的影响。这意味着选民不太关心政策或政府表现,相反,选举只是醉酒的党派人士的点名。我回顾并重新评估了这一观点的证据,得出的结论是没有令人信服的证据支持这一观点。对于许多实证测试来说,党派陶醉和政策投票在观察上是等效的。很少有机会部分区分这些可能性,比如南部调整,这表明政策投票更加普遍。当我利用对假设候选人的调查实验进行新的测试时,证据的分量有利于政策投票。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: In the last half-century, social scientists have engaged in a methodologically focused and substantively far-reaching mission to make the study of politics scientific. The mutually reinforcing components in this pursuit are the development of positive theories and the testing of their empirical implications. Although this paradigm has been associated with many advances in the understanding of politics, no leading journal of political science is dedicated primarily to the publication of positive political science.
期刊最新文献
The Reputation Politics of the Filibuster A Letter from the Editors-in-Chief Social Conflict and the Predatory State Overreacting and Posturing: How Accountability and Ideology Shape Executive Policies A Gap in Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1