No Republican, No Vote: Undervoting and Consequences of the Top-Two Primary System

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE State Politics & Policy Quarterly Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1177/1532440019893688
Colin A. Fisk
{"title":"No Republican, No Vote: Undervoting and Consequences of the Top-Two Primary System","authors":"Colin A. Fisk","doi":"10.1177/1532440019893688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Washington and California adopted the Top-Two Primary in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Under this new system, all candidates regardless of party affiliation run against each other, narrowing the field down to the top two for the general election. In some jurisdictions, the general election features two candidates from the same party. Ten percent of California voters chose not to vote in the 2016 U.S. Senate election which featured two Democrats. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (2012–2016), I find that among those who vote in the national November elections, orphans, or voters without a copartisan candidate on the ballot are more likely to undervote, opting out of voting in their congressional race. Levels of undervoting are nearly 20 percentage points higher for orphaned voters compared to non-orphaned voters. Additionally, voters who abstain perceive more ideological distance between themselves and the candidates compared to voters who cast a vote. These findings support a multi-step framework for vote decisions in same-party matchups: voters are more likely to undervote if they are unable to vote for a candidate from their party (partisan model), but all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate when they perceive ideological proximity (ideological model).","PeriodicalId":47181,"journal":{"name":"State Politics & Policy Quarterly","volume":"20 1","pages":"292 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1532440019893688","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"State Politics & Policy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440019893688","RegionNum":2,"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: 6

Abstract

Washington and California adopted the Top-Two Primary in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Under this new system, all candidates regardless of party affiliation run against each other, narrowing the field down to the top two for the general election. In some jurisdictions, the general election features two candidates from the same party. Ten percent of California voters chose not to vote in the 2016 U.S. Senate election which featured two Democrats. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (2012–2016), I find that among those who vote in the national November elections, orphans, or voters without a copartisan candidate on the ballot are more likely to undervote, opting out of voting in their congressional race. Levels of undervoting are nearly 20 percentage points higher for orphaned voters compared to non-orphaned voters. Additionally, voters who abstain perceive more ideological distance between themselves and the candidates compared to voters who cast a vote. These findings support a multi-step framework for vote decisions in same-party matchups: voters are more likely to undervote if they are unable to vote for a candidate from their party (partisan model), but all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate when they perceive ideological proximity (ideological model).
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
没有共和党人,没有投票:投票不足和前两名初选制度的后果
华盛顿州和加利福尼亚州分别在2008年和2012年采用了前两名初选。在这种新制度下,所有候选人不分党派相互竞争,将总选的竞争范围缩小到前两名。在一些司法管辖区,大选有来自同一政党的两名候选人。2016年美国参议院选举中,有10%的加州选民选择不投票。利用合作国会选举研究(2012-2016)的数据,我发现在11月全国大选中投票的人中,孤儿或选票上没有合作候选人的选民更有可能投票不足,选择在国会竞选中投票。与非孤儿选民相比,孤儿选民的未投票率高出近20个百分点。此外,与投票的选民相比,弃权的选民认为自己与候选人之间的意识形态差距更大。这些发现支持了在同党竞争中投票决策的多步骤框架:如果选民无法投票给自己政党的候选人(党派模型),他们更有可能投票不足,但所有选民都更有可能投票给意识形态接近的候选人(意识形态模型)。
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
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: State Politics & Policy Quarterly (SPPQ) features studies that develop general hypotheses of political behavior and policymaking and test these hypotheses using the unique methodological advantages of the states. It also includes field review essays and a section entitled “The Practical Researcher,” which is a service-oriented feature designed to provide a data, methodological, and assessment resource for those conducting research on state politics. SPPQ is the official journal of the State Politics and Policy section of the American Political Science Association and is published by the University of Illinois Press for the Institute of Legislative Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
期刊最新文献
SPQ volume 23 issue 4 Cover and Front matter SPQ volume 23 issue 4 Cover and Back matter Governing Through Gridlock: Bill Composition under Divided Government Are Initiatives an End-Run Around the Legislative Process? Divided Government and Voter Support for California Initiatives Assessing a New Measure of State Policy Mood: Response to Lagodny, Jones, Koch, and Enns
×
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