Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 226 Views
This research investigates the impact of party and leader cues on voter decisions during national "polity-shaping" referenda. Through an Internet survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the 2006 U.S. Congressional elections, we explore whether these cues influence voters' choices regarding proposals like denying public services to illegal immigrants. The study highlights how voters rely on party identification and leader perceptions to make informed decisions amidst uncertainty and complexity, revealing that these cues become significant when interacted with individual partisanship and leader affinity.
E N D
Parties, Leaders andReferendum Voting:An Internet Survey Experiment Walt Borges University of Texas at Dallas wborges@utdallas.edu Harold Clarke University of Texas at Dallas, University of Essex hclarke@utdallas.edu
Research question • Do party and leader cues influence voters’ choices in national “polity-shaping” referenda? • National polity-shaping referenda – high stakes and abundant uncertainty – e.g., Canada’s 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Constitutional Accord, recent referendums on EU Constitution • National referenda often infused with party and leader politics. • Respondents often have some residual knowledge of the referendum issues through discussion of the issue in a partisan context. • In other cases, divisions within parties and among leaders forced the issue to be thrown to the people. • Parties, leaders and elites use cues to prompt electorate on preferred outcomes. • Electorate has some knowledge of the proposition issue, but individuals are: • uncertain of promised outcomes • overwhelmed by complexity of some proposals • have limited interest and resources to determine choice. • Voters rely on cues to help them make their decisions.
Survey: The 2006 Political support in america survey • National Pre- and Post- Congressional Election InternetSurvey of the American Electorate Conducted in October and November 2006 • Survey House – YouGov – Survey Director, Joe Twyman • Survey Experiment in Post-Election Wave, N = 2778
Survey question Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. Would you vote: In favor of the proposition to deny public services to illegal immigrants? Against the proposition to deny public services to illegal immigrants? I would not vote in the referendum. Don’t know.
Treatment groups • Control group and seven treatment groups. • No cue • Republicans for • Democrats against • Republicans for / Democrats against • Bush for • Clinton against • Bush for / Clinton against • Bush, Republicans for / Clinton, Democrats against • Interactions with party identification and leader affect.
Treatment group questions • Treatment group 2 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. The Democratic Party opposes the proposition. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK] • Treatment group 4 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. President Bush supports the proposition. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK] • Treatment group 7 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. Republican President Bush supports the proposition and Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton opposes it. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK]
Results • By themselves, the cues have no significant effects. • When the cues are interacted with party identification, leader affect or both, they produce significant effects in the predicted directions. • Thus, impact of party and leader cues depends on partisanship and leader images. • Interaction effects of party and leader cues are significant net of larger composite model of forces affecting referendum voting.
implications • Multiple forces affect voting in national “polity shaping” referendums. • Leader and partisan cues typically available in referendum campaigns. • Voters’ use of leader and partisan cues may help explain public opinion dynamics in referendum campaigns. • Unpopular leaders of governing parties cannot use referendums to bolster support. (e.g., Mulroney in Canada’s 1992 constitutional referendum) • Continuing puzzle: Why do national referendum propositions often fail? • Possible Answer (for at least some referendums): The Irony of Governing Leader and Party Cues – popular leaders and governing parties supply positive cues BUT are popular because of their performance – performance that enhances the attractiveness of the status quo.
Advantages of Internet survey experiments • Cost effective – Very large N’s feasible. Several treatments possible. • Cost effective – obtain extra respondents with particular demographic characteristics if needed. • Sophisticated treatments – Audio, video, feedback to respondents. Mostly impossible with conventional RDD. Possible with CAPI, but can be difficult and obtrusive. • Seamless incorporation of experiment in survey instrument, even with sophisticated treatments. Unobtrusive. • Minimize social desirability biases. Respondents may be more honest answering internet surveys than face-to-face or telephone interviews.
