Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 331–355

Correct Voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Nominating Elections

Original Paper

Abstract

Criticisms of the system by which the American political parties select their candidates focus on issues of representativeness—how choices are dominated by relatively small numbers of ideologically extreme primary voters, or how residents of small states voting early in the process have disproportionate influence. This paper adds a different concern, albeit one that still addresses representativeness. How well do primary and caucus voters represent their own values and interests with their vote choices? Lau and Redlawsk’s notion of “correct voting” is applied to the 2008 U.S. nominating contests. Four reasons to expect levels of correct voting to be lower in caucus and primary elections than in general election campaigns are discussed. Results suggest that voters in U.S. nominating contests do much worse than voters in general election campaigns, often barely doing better than chance in selecting the candidate who best represents their own values and priorities. Discussion focuses on institutional reforms that should improve citizens’ ability to make correct voting choices in caucuses and primaries.

Keywords

Correct voting Primary elections Voting behavior Institutional effects Political cognition Cognitive limitations 

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1989). Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. Journal of Politics, 51(4), 977–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. (1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich, J. H. (1980). Before the convention: Strategies and choices in presidential nomination campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey, J. M., & Hix, S. (2011). The electoral sweet spot: Low-magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, M., Karol, D., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Converse, P. E. (1964). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In E. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, P. E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behavior. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 4, pp. 75–170). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Crotty, W. J., & Jackson, J. S. (1985). Presidential primaries and nominations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Delli Carpini, M., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dwyer, C. E. (2011). Packed primaries and empty caucuses: Voter turnout in presidential nomination contests. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 31 Mar–3 Apr 2011.Google Scholar
  14. Feldman, S., & Huddy, L. (2005). Racial resentment and White opposition to race-conscious programs: Principles or prejudice? American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Geer, J. G. (1988). Assessing the representativeness of electorates in presidential primaries. American Journal of Political Science, 32(4), 929–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geer, J. G. (1989). Nominating presidents: An evaluation of voters and primaries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gerken, H. K., & Rand, D. B. (2010). Creating better heuristics for the presidential primary: The citizen assembly. Political Science Quarterly, 125(2), 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gopoian, J. D. (1982). Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential primaries. American Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ha, S. E., & Lau, R. R. (2010). Personality traits and correct voting. (under review). Google Scholar
  21. Jackman, S., & Vavreck, L. (2009). Constructing the 2007–2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project Sample. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. Jackman, S., & Vavreck, L. (2011). Cosmopolitanism. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  23. Jones-Correa, M., & Walker, A. (2011). Primary voting and general election turnout. In Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 31 Mar–3 Apr 2011.Google Scholar
  24. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamarck, E. C. (2009). Primary politics: How presidential candidates have shaped the modern nominating system. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kaufman, K. M., Gimpel, J. G., & Hoffman, A. H. (2003). A promise fulfilled? Open primaries and representation. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 457–476.Google Scholar
  27. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1994). The psychology of political momentum. Political Research Quarterly, 47(4), 923–938.Google Scholar
  28. Kinder, D. R. (1998). Communication and opinion. In Annual review of political science (Vol. 1, pp 167–197). Stanford, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  29. Lau, R. R. (2003). Models of decision making. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 19–59). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lau, R.R., Patel, P., Fahmy, D., & Kaufman, R. (2012). Correct voting across 33 Democracies (under review).Google Scholar
  32. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mann, T. E. (2009). Is this any way to pick a president? Lessons from 2008. In S. S. Smith & M. J. Springer (Eds.), Reforming the presidential nomination process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marshall, T. R. (1984). Issues, personalities, and presidential primary voters. Social Science Quarterly, 65(3), 750–760.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, W. G. (2000). In pursuit of the White House 2000: How we choose our presidential nominees. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  39. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Norrander, B. (1986). Selective participation: Presidential primary voters as a subset of general election voters. American Politics Quarterly, 14(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
  41. Norrander, B. (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Norrander, B. (2006). The attrition game: Initial resources, initial contests and the exit of candidates during the US presidential primary season. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patel, P. (2010). The effect of institutions on correct voting. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  44. Patterson, T. E. (2009). Voter participation: Records galore this time, but what about next time? In S. S. Smith & M. J. Springer (Eds.), Reforming the presidential nomination process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  45. Paulson, A. (2009). Party change and the shifting dynamics in presidential nominations: The Lessons of 2008. Polity, 41(3), 312–330.Google Scholar
  46. Polsby, N., & Wildavsky, A. (1971). Presidential elections: Strategies of American electoral politics (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  47. Polsby, N., Wildavsky, A., & Hopkins, D. A. (2008). 1971. Presidential elections: Strategies and structures of American politics (12th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  48. Rabinowitz, G., & MacDonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Redlawsk, D. P., Tolbert, C. J., & Donovan, T. (2011). Why Iowa? How caucuses and sequenced primaries improve the presidential nomination process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rickershauser, J., & Aldrich, J. H. (2007). It’s the electability, stupid’—or maybe not? electability, substance, and strategic voting in presidential primaries. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ridout, T. N., & Rottinghaus, B. (2008). The importance of being early: Presidential primary front-loading and the impact of the proposed western regional primary. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(1), 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabato, L. J. (2009). Picking presidential nominees: Time for a new regime. In S. S. Smith & M. J. Springer (Eds.), Reforming the presidential nomination process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shafer, B. E. (1983). Quiet revolution: The struggle for the Democratic Party and the shaping of post-reform politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, D. C., Weber, S. J., Haaland, G. A., Mueller, R. H., & Craig, R. E. (1976). Voter decisionmaking in a primary election: An evaluation of three models of choice. American Journal of Political Science, 20(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright, G. C. (2009). Rules and the ideological character of primary electorates. In S. S. Smith & M. J. Springer (Eds.), Reforming the presidential nomination process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations