The Role of Indifference in Split-Ticket Voting
- Nicholas T. Davis
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Previous studies of split-ticket voting have demonstrated that partisan ambivalence—countervailing affective cross-pressure that decreases preference stability—is positively related to an individual’s likelihood of casting a split ballot. While these findings are intuitive, recent methodological work regarding the measurement of ambivalence hints that indifference—i.e. the complete absence of affective political attachments—should produce a stronger positive effect on split-ticket voting than ambivalence. If partisan considerations are not central to the self-image of indifferent voters—who have little cognitive or emotional attachments from which they draw politically-relevant information—then they should be very likely to cast split ballots given that their nominal partisan attachments are only tentatively related to electoral choice. Drawing upon this distinction, I disaggregate indifferent individuals (i.e. those voters who are neither positively nor negatively oriented towards the parties) from ambivalent ones (i.e. those voters who possess mixed or conflicting affective attachments to both parties) and demonstrate that indifference has a greater positive effect on an individual’s propensity to engage in split-ticketing. I then show how the prevailing interval-level operationalization of ambivalence underestimates the true effect of indifference on split-ticketing.
- Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184. CrossRef
- Beck, P. A., Baum, L., Clausen, A. R., & Smith, C. E. (1992). Patterns and sources of ticket splitting in subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review, 86, 916–928. CrossRef
- Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Brunell, T. L., & Grofman, B. (2009). Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level: Evidence from split house-president outcomes, 1900–2004. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 62–69. CrossRef
- Burden, B. C. (Ed.). (2002). Uncertainty in American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (2004). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Campbell, A., & Miller, W. E. (1957). The motivational basis of straight and split-ticket voting. American Political Science Review, 51, 293–312. CrossRef
- Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2004). Policy balancing and preferences for party control of government. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 541–550. CrossRef
- Fiorina, M. P. (1977). An outline for a model of party choice. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 601–625. CrossRef
- Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Fiorina, M. P. (1996). Divided government (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Garand, J. C., & Lichtal, M. G. (2000). Explaining divided government in the United States: Testing an intentional model of split-ticket voting. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 173–191. CrossRef
- Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Klar, S. (2013). Identity and engagement among political independents in America. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12036.
- Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929. CrossRef
- Lavine, H., Johnson, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. New York: Duell, Sloane, and Pearce.
- Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2004). Split-ticket voting: The effects of cognitive Madisonianism. The Journal of Politics, 66, 97–112. CrossRef
- Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326. CrossRef
- McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
- Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, indifferent, and ambivalent: The consequence of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 60–100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Mulligan, K. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32(3), 505–530. CrossRef
- Nir, L., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Campaign mixed-message flows and timing of vote decision. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 326–346. CrossRef
- Petrocik, J. R. (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification. Political Methodology, 1, 31–48.
- Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431–449. CrossRef
- Rudolph, T. J. (2005). Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence. Political Psychology, 27(1), 99–122. CrossRef
- Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827. CrossRef
- Thompson, M., Zanna, M., & Griffin, D. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In J. Krosnick (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Thornton, J. R. (2011). Ambivalent or indifferent: Examining the properties of measures of partisan ambivalence. Political Psychology, 32(5), 863–884. CrossRef
- Thornton, J. R. (2013a). Getting lost on the way to the party: Ambivalence, indifference, and defection with evidence from two presidential elections. Social Science Quarterly. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00940.x.
- Thornton, J. R. (2013b). The impact of elite polarization on partisan ambivalence and indifference. Political Behavior, 35(2), 409–428. CrossRef
- Yoo, S. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177. CrossRef
- Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579–616. CrossRef
- The Role of Indifference in Split-Ticket Voting
Volume 37, Issue 1 , pp 67-86
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Spit-ticket voting
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, 240 Stubbs Hall, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803-5433, USA