Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 33–54 | Cite as

The Rich are Different: The Effect of Wealth on Partisanship

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Rich voters tend to be Republicans and poor voters tend to be Democrats. Yet, in most settings it is difficult to distinguish the effects of affluence on partisanship from those of closely related variables such as education. To address these concerns I use state lottery and administrative records to examine the effect of changing economic circumstances on the partisanship of over 1,900 registered voters. Winning larger amounts in the lottery produces a small increase in the probability an individual is later a registered Republican, an effect that is larger for those who registered to vote after winning. This suggests that wealth does affect partisanship, particularly for those without preexisting attachments to a political party. Comparing estimates from the lottery to cross-sectional data suggests the latter exaggerates the relationship between wealth and partisanship, although controlling for additional variables produces largely similar estimates.

Keywords

Partisanship Economic voting American politics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Morris Fiorina, Justin Grimmer, Simon Jackman, Neil Malhotra, Erin Gough, Jonathan Mummolo, Tor Peterson, Gabor Simonovits, Brad Spahn and attendees of the Stanford American Politics Workshop and Stanford Graduate Political Economy workshop for helpful comments. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-114747. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Replication materials can be found at: www.erikpeterson.web.stanford.edu.

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9305_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (155 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 154 KB)

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S. (2010). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2010: Common Content. Release 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from. http://cces.gov.harvard.edu.
  3. Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2012). Validation: What big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis, 20(4), 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, M. A., Hopkins, D. J., & Rogers, T. (2014). Unresponsive and unpersuaded: The unintended consequences of voter perusasion efforts. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bagues, M., & Esteve-Volart, B. (2013). Politicians’ luck of the draw: Evidence from the Spanish christmas lottery. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. P. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Caruso, E. M., Vohs, K. D., Baxter, B., & Waytz, A. (2013). Mere exposure to money increases endorsement of free-market systems and social inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142(2), 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1990). The self-interest motive in American public opinion. In S. Long (Ed.), Research in micropolitics (pp. 1–28). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Census Bureau. (2012). Voting and registration in the election of November 2012—detailed tables—table 4a. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html.
  11. Chong, D., Citrin, J., & Conley, P. (2001). When self-interest matters. Political Psychology, 22(3), 541–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Converse, P. E. (1976). The dynamics of party support. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Cowden, J. A., & McDermott, R. M. (2000). Short-term forces and partisanship. Political Behavior, 22(3), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doherty, D., Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2006). Personal income and attitudes toward redistribution: A study of lottery winners. Political Psychology, 27(3), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: harper & row.Google Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘narrow data base’. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erikson, R. S., & Stoker, L. (2011). Caught in the draft: The effects of Vietnam draft lottery status on political attitudes. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., & Stimson, J. A. (2008). The macro polity updated. Presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  21. Gallup. (1936). Combined Data Set—Gallup Poll 1936–1937 [USAIPO1936-1937]. Retrieved Jan 10, 2014, from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  22. Geer, J. G. (1991). The electorate’s Partisan evaluations: Evidence of a continuing democratic edge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelman, A., Shor, B., Bafumi, J., & Park, D. (2007). Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: Whats the matter with connecticut? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, D. P. (2013). Breaking empirical deadlocks in the study of partisanship: An overview of experimental research strategies. Politics and Governance, 1(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  27. Green, D. P., & Gerken, A. E. (1989). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Healy, A. J., Malhotra, N., & Mo, C. H. (2010). Irrelevant events affect voters’ evaluations of government performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(29), 12804–12809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hersh, E. (2013). Long-term effect of September 11 on the political behavior of victims’ families and neighbors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., 110(52), 20959–20963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hersh, E. & Nall, C. (N.D., Forthcoming). A direct-observation approach to identify small-area variation in political behavior: The case of income, partisanship and geography. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
  32. Huber, G. A., Hill, S. J., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 720–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Issenberg, S. (2012). The victory lab. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  34. Jacobson, G. C. (2008). A divider, not a uniter: George W. Bush and the American people. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Princeton: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotrophic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lau, R. R., & Heldman, C. (2009). Self-interest, symbolic attitudes, and support for public policy: A multilevel analysis. Political Psychology, 30(4), 513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. New York: Duell, Sloane and Pearce.Google Scholar
  40. Lindahl, M. (2005). Estimating the effect of income on health and mortality using lottery prizes as an exogenous source of variation in income. Journal of Human Resources, 40(1), 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipset, S. M. (1981). Political man: The social bases of politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (1999). Social cleavages and political change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Margalit, Y. (2013). Explaining social policy preferences: Evidence from the great recession. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2012). Who’s the party of the people? Economic populism and the U.S. public’s beliefs about political parties. Political Behavior, 34(2), 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pennsylvania Lottery. (2010). Does a winner have to pay taxes on lottery prizes? Retrieved Jun 1, 2014, from https://lottery-pa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1133/~/does-a-winner-have-to-pay-taxes-on-lottery-prizes.
  48. Pennsylvania Secretary of State. (2014). Voter registration statistics archive. Retrieved Oct 15, 2014, from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=572645&mode=2.
  49. Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsoy, T. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plosser, C. I., & Schwert, G. W. (1978). Money, income and sunspots: Measuring economic relationships and the effects of differencing. Journal of Monetary Economics, 4, 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political economic history of roll call voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Powdthavee, N., & Oswald, A. J. (2014). Does money make people right-wing and inegalitarian? A longitudinal study of lottery winners. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  53. Rhodes, J. H., & Schaffner, B. F. (2013). Economic inequality and representation in the U.S. house: A new approach using population-level data. Presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  54. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). Self-Interest in Americans’ political opinions. In J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 147–170). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1982). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stonecash, J. M. (2000). Class and party in American politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations