Pub Date : 2022-09-06DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221123037
D. Barker, C. Carman, S. Bowler
Democratic policymaking requires compromise, but public support for it varies substantially. Scholars know relatively little about the psychology of such public attitudes. In this investigation, we consider the predictive capacities of humanitarianism (a commitment to helping those who are suffering) and egalitarianism (a commitment to treating people equally). Such altruistic values, we argue, foster concern for the common good and a cooperative vision of democratic policymaking — which, in turn, engender support for compromise. Moreover, we suggest that partisan differences in such values (with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to prioritize them, on average), help explain Democrats’ disproportionate support for compromise. Data from two nationally representative studies are consistent with this theoretical perspective, offering novel insights into the roots of political compromise, the reach of core values as political determinants, and the dynamics of partisan asymmetry.
{"title":"Humanitarianism, Egalitarianism, and Public Support for Political Compromise","authors":"D. Barker, C. Carman, S. Bowler","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221123037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221123037","url":null,"abstract":"Democratic policymaking requires compromise, but public support for it varies substantially. Scholars know relatively little about the psychology of such public attitudes. In this investigation, we consider the predictive capacities of humanitarianism (a commitment to helping those who are suffering) and egalitarianism (a commitment to treating people equally). Such altruistic values, we argue, foster concern for the common good and a cooperative vision of democratic policymaking — which, in turn, engender support for compromise. Moreover, we suggest that partisan differences in such values (with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to prioritize them, on average), help explain Democrats’ disproportionate support for compromise. Data from two nationally representative studies are consistent with this theoretical perspective, offering novel insights into the roots of political compromise, the reach of core values as political determinants, and the dynamics of partisan asymmetry.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48213436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112392
Kylee J. Britzman, Benjamin R. Kantack
Partisan polarization in the United States has increased the ideological uniformity of the Democratic and Republican parties, and therefore the usefulness of party identification as an indicator of candidates’ ideology. However, candidates – especially during primary elections – often attack their opponents for being insufficiently conservative or progressive, explicitly signaling to voters that they should put less faith in their stereotypes about the party’s ideology when evaluating candidates. To assess the effects of these ideological attacks, we conduct a Dynamic Process Tracing Environment experiment that simulates a primary election campaign. We find mixed evidence that participants, when exposed to an ideological attack ad, lower their ratings of the attacked candidate’s ideological extremity, overall favorability, qualification for office, and trustworthiness. However, we observe no differences between experimental conditions in terms of information search, suggesting that ideological attacks are generally accepted at face value and not independently verified by voters.
{"title":"Do Ideological Attacks Change How Voters Evaluate Primary Election Candidates?","authors":"Kylee J. Britzman, Benjamin R. Kantack","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221112392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112392","url":null,"abstract":"Partisan polarization in the United States has increased the ideological uniformity of the Democratic and Republican parties, and therefore the usefulness of party identification as an indicator of candidates’ ideology. However, candidates – especially during primary elections – often attack their opponents for being insufficiently conservative or progressive, explicitly signaling to voters that they should put less faith in their stereotypes about the party’s ideology when evaluating candidates. To assess the effects of these ideological attacks, we conduct a Dynamic Process Tracing Environment experiment that simulates a primary election campaign. We find mixed evidence that participants, when exposed to an ideological attack ad, lower their ratings of the attacked candidate’s ideological extremity, overall favorability, qualification for office, and trustworthiness. However, we observe no differences between experimental conditions in terms of information search, suggesting that ideological attacks are generally accepted at face value and not independently verified by voters.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46148135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-25DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221118344
Semra Sevi
The overrepresentation of advanced age among elites is a rising concern in democracies such as the United States. In 2016, American voters elected Donald Trump—at the time the oldest president to enter office—and in 2020 Joe Biden beat that record. Theories of descriptive representation suggest that voters should be less likely to support older candidates when age becomes a salient campaign issue. Indeed, age raises questions about a candidate’s physical and mental health, and thus their fitness to serve in office. The present study reports on a survey experiment conducted during the 2020 Democratic Presidential primaries, which featured several candidates in their seventies, all running to replace an incumbent president of the same age group. Priming age did not affect voters’ assessments of any particular candidate’s ability to win the general election. These results are inconsistent with existing studies of age effects using hypothetical candidates. Possible causes of this discrepancy are addressed in the discussion.
{"title":"Too Old to Be President?","authors":"Semra Sevi","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221118344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221118344","url":null,"abstract":"The overrepresentation of advanced age among elites is a rising concern in democracies such as the United States. In 2016, American voters elected Donald Trump—at the time the oldest president to enter office—and in 2020 Joe Biden beat that record. Theories of descriptive representation suggest that voters should be less likely to support older candidates when age becomes a salient campaign issue. Indeed, age raises questions about a candidate’s physical and mental health, and thus their fitness to serve in office. The present study reports on a survey experiment conducted during the 2020 Democratic Presidential primaries, which featured several candidates in their seventies, all running to replace an incumbent president of the same age group. Priming age did not affect voters’ assessments of any particular candidate’s ability to win the general election. These results are inconsistent with existing studies of age effects using hypothetical candidates. Possible causes of this discrepancy are addressed in the discussion.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45875323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-19DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221121724
Irwin L. Morris
Acharya, Blackwell, and Sen (2018) argue that antebellum slavery is directly related to racial conservatism and support for the Republican Party in the modern South. Yet during the last two decades, the South has begun a subtle but still very significant partisan shift to the left. Areas where population growth has stagnated (or actually declined) have tended to become more Republican; Democratic support has been bolstered by higher population growth. Significantly, local population growth and historic slave populations are largely unrelated. I examine the extent to which antebellum slavery influences county-level southern White partisanship and racial resentment during the second decade of the 21st century. Over the course of this time period, the impact of antebellum slavery evaporates. Not coincidentally, county-level population growth is strongly associated with increased Democratic identification and more progressive racial attitudes at or near the end of this time frame.
{"title":"Partisan Politics in the 21st Century South: The Fading Impact of Antebellum Slavery","authors":"Irwin L. Morris","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221121724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221121724","url":null,"abstract":"Acharya, Blackwell, and Sen (2018) argue that antebellum slavery is directly related to racial conservatism and support for the Republican Party in the modern South. Yet during the last two decades, the South has begun a subtle but still very significant partisan shift to the left. Areas where population growth has stagnated (or actually declined) have tended to become more Republican; Democratic support has been bolstered by higher population growth. Significantly, local population growth and historic slave populations are largely unrelated. I examine the extent to which antebellum slavery influences county-level southern White partisanship and racial resentment during the second decade of the 21st century. Over the course of this time period, the impact of antebellum slavery evaporates. Not coincidentally, county-level population growth is strongly associated with increased Democratic identification and more progressive racial attitudes at or near the end of this time frame.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42771037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-14DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221119402
Richard L. Vining, Rachel Bitecofer
In the 1980s and 1990s, supporters of Supreme Court nominees tended to characterize their views in non-ideological terms while opponents relied more on ideological justifications. Since then, the judicial appointment process has been increasingly entangled with partisan conflict. Given the heightened focus on nominees’ ideological preferences, we expect that citizens are now more likely to rely on political over apolitical justifications, even if they support the nominee. We use data from a telephone survey in 2017 after the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to test this proposition. We find that contemporary citizens rely more frequently on political justifications for their support of nominees than then they did in the Reagan-Bush era. Opponents remain more likely to invoke political orientations, but the disparity has declined. The findings reveal both change and continuity in citizens’ evaluations of Supreme Court nominees.
{"title":"Change and Continuity in Citizens’ Evaluations of Supreme Court Nominees","authors":"Richard L. Vining, Rachel Bitecofer","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221119402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221119402","url":null,"abstract":"In the 1980s and 1990s, supporters of Supreme Court nominees tended to characterize their views in non-ideological terms while opponents relied more on ideological justifications. Since then, the judicial appointment process has been increasingly entangled with partisan conflict. Given the heightened focus on nominees’ ideological preferences, we expect that citizens are now more likely to rely on political over apolitical justifications, even if they support the nominee. We use data from a telephone survey in 2017 after the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to test this proposition. We find that contemporary citizens rely more frequently on political justifications for their support of nominees than then they did in the Reagan-Bush era. Opponents remain more likely to invoke political orientations, but the disparity has declined. The findings reveal both change and continuity in citizens’ evaluations of Supreme Court nominees.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65455052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-12DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221116618
H. Ashton, Michael H. Crespin, Seth C. McKee
Throughout American history some members of Congress are beset with the unfortunate predicament of facing a fellow incumbent in their bids for reelection. One culprit is responsible for these atypical contests: redistricting. Using district and sub-district level data, this research note provides the first systematic coverage of all dueling incumbent general election U.S. House races from 1843 to 2018. We chronicle and analyze when we expect to see dueling incumbent races, the ability of parties to target out-party incumbents, and the electoral value of previously represented constituents for incumbents in reconfigured districts. Although incumbent duels are uncommon, they comprise a substantial number of incumbent general election defeats in contests following redistricting.
{"title":"Dueling Incumbent House Elections, 1843-2018","authors":"H. Ashton, Michael H. Crespin, Seth C. McKee","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221116618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221116618","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout American history some members of Congress are beset with the unfortunate predicament of facing a fellow incumbent in their bids for reelection. One culprit is responsible for these atypical contests: redistricting. Using district and sub-district level data, this research note provides the first systematic coverage of all dueling incumbent general election U.S. House races from 1843 to 2018. We chronicle and analyze when we expect to see dueling incumbent races, the ability of parties to target out-party incumbents, and the electoral value of previously represented constituents for incumbents in reconfigured districts. Although incumbent duels are uncommon, they comprise a substantial number of incumbent general election defeats in contests following redistricting.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47137609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-19DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221109519
Manuel Gutiérrez, A. Simmons, John E. Transue
Ranked-Choice voting is an electoral system that has become a subject of analysis after its implementation across multiple municipalities and two states. An electoral system can affect several aspects of the election, including how voters perceive the system. Our research addresses the impact of RCV on voters’ attitudes towards democracy. In this study, we develop a theory of why ranked-choice voting will increase support for democracy and candidates, even if their preferred choice does not win. With a survey experiment, we find some support for the claim that participating in an RCV election affects how respondents perceive democracy. With the ongoing polarization and partisanship, RCV may provide an avenue for improving assessments and attitudes towards democracy.
{"title":"Ranked-Choice Voting and Democratic Attitudes","authors":"Manuel Gutiérrez, A. Simmons, John E. Transue","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221109519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221109519","url":null,"abstract":"Ranked-Choice voting is an electoral system that has become a subject of analysis after its implementation across multiple municipalities and two states. An electoral system can affect several aspects of the election, including how voters perceive the system. Our research addresses the impact of RCV on voters’ attitudes towards democracy. In this study, we develop a theory of why ranked-choice voting will increase support for democracy and candidates, even if their preferred choice does not win. With a survey experiment, we find some support for the claim that participating in an RCV election affects how respondents perceive democracy. With the ongoing polarization and partisanship, RCV may provide an avenue for improving assessments and attitudes towards democracy.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48472441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-13DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112396
Joseph A. Coll
Leading up to the 2020 election, many Americans were worried about casting a ballot in-person due to the Covid-19 pandemic and supported measures to protect voters at the voting booths. Addressing these concerns, election administrators enacted multiple Covid safety measures (e.g., routinely cleaning voting booths, wearing face masks, and providing single use ballot pens). Given voters’ health concerns related to the pandemic and support for safety measures at the ballot box, the presence of Covid safety protocols may increase how safe voters feel voting in-person and evaluations of their voting experience. Using the 2020 Survey of the Performance of American Elections, this study finds that the presence of Covid safety measures increased feelings of voting safety, evaluations of poll workers, and the positivity of the voting experience, but typically not polling place evaluations; though, effects differ by Covid safety policy.
{"title":"Proper Protective (Voting) Equipment: How Covid-19 Safety Measures Shaped In-Person Voting Experiences During the 2020 Election","authors":"Joseph A. Coll","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221112396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112396","url":null,"abstract":"Leading up to the 2020 election, many Americans were worried about casting a ballot in-person due to the Covid-19 pandemic and supported measures to protect voters at the voting booths. Addressing these concerns, election administrators enacted multiple Covid safety measures (e.g., routinely cleaning voting booths, wearing face masks, and providing single use ballot pens). Given voters’ health concerns related to the pandemic and support for safety measures at the ballot box, the presence of Covid safety protocols may increase how safe voters feel voting in-person and evaluations of their voting experience. Using the 2020 Survey of the Performance of American Elections, this study finds that the presence of Covid safety measures increased feelings of voting safety, evaluations of poll workers, and the positivity of the voting experience, but typically not polling place evaluations; though, effects differ by Covid safety policy.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47472183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-08DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112634
Anne E. Baker
Out-of-state donors’ contributions represent a growing share of fundraising receipts for House candidates. This raises the question of whether out-of-state contributions simply represent more money flowing to the campaigns’ coffers or whether these monies could be worth more than their outright cash value. Using campaign finance data from the U.S. Federal Election Commission 2010-2018, I examine both the fundraising and electoral impacts of non-incumbent House candidates’ receipt of these funds using structural equation modeling, a matching analysis, and a regression analysis. I uncover evidence that out-of-state contributions are an indication of the candidate’s integration into the extended party network (EPN) finding they are closely tied to interest group support. Out-of-state contributions are also found to have a positive impact on non-incumbent House candidates’ competitiveness, which likely stems from the broader support of the EPN.
{"title":"Out-of-State Contributions Provide Non-Incumbent House Candidates with a Competitive Edge","authors":"Anne E. Baker","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221112634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112634","url":null,"abstract":"Out-of-state donors’ contributions represent a growing share of fundraising receipts for House candidates. This raises the question of whether out-of-state contributions simply represent more money flowing to the campaigns’ coffers or whether these monies could be worth more than their outright cash value. Using campaign finance data from the U.S. Federal Election Commission 2010-2018, I examine both the fundraising and electoral impacts of non-incumbent House candidates’ receipt of these funds using structural equation modeling, a matching analysis, and a regression analysis. I uncover evidence that out-of-state contributions are an indication of the candidate’s integration into the extended party network (EPN) finding they are closely tied to interest group support. Out-of-state contributions are also found to have a positive impact on non-incumbent House candidates’ competitiveness, which likely stems from the broader support of the EPN.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44607644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-07DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221112395
K. Amira
Conservative intellectuals have expressed concern that Donald Trump has tarnished the conservative brand with his authoritarian-populist rhetoric and style of governing. What exactly is Donald Trump’s effect on this ideological label? In this paper I replicate work showing that members of Congress who have openly supported Trump are seen as more conservative than those who do not openly support him. I then test this relationship experimentally and explore whether a pro (or anti) Trump cue alone drives this perception or whether other perceived, unstated issue positions might influence this result. I find that supporting Trump moves candidates rightward compared to a control group, and this effect is about twice as large as the anti-Trump cue which moves candidates leftward. I also find that candidates who support Trump are more likely to be associated with additional issue-related content, which could affect ideological perception. Roadmaps for extensions are also discussed.
{"title":"Donald Trump’s Effect on Who is Considered “Conservative”","authors":"K. Amira","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221112395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221112395","url":null,"abstract":"Conservative intellectuals have expressed concern that Donald Trump has tarnished the conservative brand with his authoritarian-populist rhetoric and style of governing. What exactly is Donald Trump’s effect on this ideological label? In this paper I replicate work showing that members of Congress who have openly supported Trump are seen as more conservative than those who do not openly support him. I then test this relationship experimentally and explore whether a pro (or anti) Trump cue alone drives this perception or whether other perceived, unstated issue positions might influence this result. I find that supporting Trump moves candidates rightward compared to a control group, and this effect is about twice as large as the anti-Trump cue which moves candidates leftward. I also find that candidates who support Trump are more likely to be associated with additional issue-related content, which could affect ideological perception. Roadmaps for extensions are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46944525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：