Running For It
Ticket Splitting in a Nationalized Era
Shiro Kuriwaki
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Party loyalty in U.S. congressional elections has reached heights unprecedented in decades. Theories of partisanship as informational cues would predict that deviation from national partisanship should be even more rare in low-information, down-ballot offices. Yet, here I show that ticket splitting in state and local offices is often higher than in Congress. I use cast vote records from voting machines that overcome measurement challenges, and develop a clustering algorithm to summarize such ballot data. For example, about one in three South Carolina Trump voters form a bloc whose probability of ticket splitting is 5 percent for Congress, but 32 percent for county council and 50 percent for sheriff. I show that a model with candidate valence differentials can explain these patterns. These results show that even with nationalized politics, some voters cross party lines to vote for the more experienced and higher quality candidate in state and local elections.
The Comovement of Voter Preferences: Insights from U.S. Presidential Election Prediction Markets Beyond Polls
Mikhail Chernov, Vadim Elenev & Dongho Song
NBER Working Paper, January 2025
Abstract:
We propose a novel time-series econometric framework to forecast U.S. Presidential election outcomes in real time by combining polling data, economic fundamentals, and political prediction market prices. Our model estimates the joint dynamics of voter preferences across states. Applying our approach to the 2024 Presidential Election, we find a two-factor structure driving the vast majority of the variation in voter preferences. We identify electorally similar state clusters without relying on historical data or demographic models of voter behavior. Our simulations quantify the correlations between state-level election outcomes. Failing to take the correlations into account can bias the forecasted win probability for a given candidate by more than 10 percentage points. We find Pennsylvania to be the most pivotal state in the 2024 election. Our results provide insights for election observers, candidates, and traders.
Did Changes to the Voting Rights Act Cause Electoral Backsliding in the States?
Alice Malmberg
Election Law Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
When announced in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder decision immediately raised concerns that its invalidation of the coverage formula stipulated in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act would foster voter suppression and other antidemocratic practices in jurisdictions subject to preclearance protections. Over a decade after this decision, I put these claims to the test. Using a synthetic difference-in-difference design and the State Democracy Index, a holistic measurement model that provides state-level estimates of electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018, I examine whether changes in state-level electoral democracy may have led to electoral backsliding in formerly fully and partially covered states in the years following the Court's decision. Ultimately, I find no evidence that electoral backsliding occurred in these jurisdictions in subsequent years. I conclude by discussing the significance of this finding and offering directions for future study.
Why Politicians Won't Apologize: Communication Effects in the Aftermath of Sex Scandals
Bence Hamrak et al.
British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
A startling feature of the countless recent sex scandals involving politicians has been the almost complete lack of public apologies. This note explores the electoral incentives politicians face when crafting communication strategies in the aftermath of sex scandals. We focus on two communication strategies -- denials and apologies -- and assess their impact on incumbent support across a wide range of scandals that vary in terms of the seriousness of the charges as well as the availability of evidence. Using data from a series of survey experiments, including over 10,000 respondents we find that citizens punish incumbents who apologize, even in the case of accusations that appear the least serious in the eyes of voters. Moreover, apologies fail to generate political support compared to denials, even in cases when voters are exposed to evidence. This suggests that in most cases apologies are simply not politically viable communication strategies.
Understanding the effect of abortion attitudes on elections after Dobbs: Evidence from cross-sectional and panel surveys in Texas
Grant Ferguson et al.
Social Science Quarterly, December 2024, Pages 2252-2268
Method: We relied on pre- and post-election cross-sectional and panel survey data from Texas. Texas is an important case because (1) the ruling placed abortion policy squarely on the shoulders of the states and (2) each state has different laws regarding abortion (including so-called "trigger" laws restricting abortion after Roe was overturned).
Results: The data suggest that state abortion policy context affects voter attitudes and that incumbent evaluations and the vote in Texas were largely insulated from an anti-Dobbs backlash in 2022.
Maybe later: Term limits and strategy behind candidate entry
Jordon Newton
Legislative Studies Quarterly, forthcoming
Abstract:
While academics have examined how term limits affect elected officials, little work has gone into understanding the way they alter challenger behavior. I argue that they reduce the number of candidates who challenge incumbents, leading to a lock-in effect. By increasing the frequency of open races, term limits incentivize potential challengers to wait for an open race. To demonstrate this, I analyze primary data from 85 legislative chambers in 44 states over a two-decade period to see how term limits alter challenger entry patterns. I show that term-limited incumbents face fewer challengers in their last two terms in office and challenges are weaker, while competition for open races ramps up. In doing so, I provide a major insight into how term limits alter challenger decision-making to run for entry-level office while improving our understanding of candidate entry by accounting for multiple potential points of entry.
Winning At All Costs? How Negative Partisanship Affects Voter Decision-Making
Zachary Albert & Mia Costa
Political Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Do voters who dislike the other side prefer candidates who can win, even if they are less representative? Negative partisanship is an important feature of American politics, but few scholars have examined its relationship to voter decision-making. We argue that negative partisanship shapes how voters prioritize candidate electability and substantive representation. Using two conjoint experiments, we find that a primary candidate's likelihood of beating the opposing party in the general election has a strong influence on whether they are chosen as a voter's strategic choice (who they would vote for) and sincere choice (who best represents their interests). Importantly, the effect of electability is conditional on voters' feelings toward the opposing party, but not their own party. Negative partisans are also more willing to trade greater ideological and policy representation for a better shot at electoral victory.
Prevailing Party laws and general election outcomes
Darren Grant
Social Science Quarterly, December 2024, Pages 2093-2106
Objective: This article examines the incidence and effects of the most common ballot ordering procedure used in U.S. general elections, Prevailing Party laws, which give the most advantageous ballot position to the currently prevailing political party.
Methods: Panel regression and regression discontinuity analyses are applied to almost 50 years of county-level election data from Wyoming.
Results: Prevailing Party laws generally increase the favored candidate's vote share by two percentage points or more, enough to flip the result of roughly 1 percent of major elections nationwide.