Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 899–920 | Cite as

Expressive and Strategic Behavior in Legislative Elections in Argentina

  • Lucas Núñez
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper I study strategic voting behavior in the Argentine Senate election for the City of Buenos Aires in 2013. I estimate and analyze the voter transition matrix between the primary and general elections using a Bayesian hierarchical model for ecological inference, utilizing a rich data set of ballot box data. The results show that strategic behavior is not widespread among the electorate in Buenos Aires. In particular, at least 75 % of voters who had the opportunity to avoid vote wasting by behaving strategically did not. I also find high levels of vote wasting when analyzing other provinces during the same election cycle. These results suggest that these electorates might be composed of a mixture of voters with strategic and expressive motivations, where the expressive factions dominate.

Keywords

Strategic voting Voter transitions Bayesian models Ecological inference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank R. Michael Alvarez for invaluable advise, Roderick Kiewiet, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, Welmar Rosado, and Marcelo Fernández, and participants at the MPSA Annual Meeting in Chicago April 2015 and the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology in Rochester July 2015. Replication code and data is available at the Political Behavior Dataverse at ”Replication Data for: ’Expressive and Strategic Behavior in Legislative Elections in Argentina”’, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PEXMHA

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9340_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (161 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 123 kb)

References

  1. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. (1992). ’Sophisticated’ voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., Boehmke, F. J., & Nagler, J. (2006). Strategic voting in British elections. Electoral Studies, 25, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2000). A new approach for modelling strategic voting in multiparty elections. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M., & Kiewiet, D. R. (2009). Rationality and rationalistic choice in the California recall. British Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreadis, I., & Chadjipadelis, T. (2009). A method for the estimation of voter transition rates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 19(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashworth, S., & Clinton, J. D. (2007). Does advertising exposure affect turnout? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benewick, R., Birch, A., Blumler, J., & Ewbank, A. (1969). The floating voter and the liberal view of representation. Political Studies, 17(2), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit, K., Laver, M., & Giannetti, D. (2004). Multi-party split-ticket voting estimation as an ecological inference problem. In G. King, O. Rosen, & M. Tanner (Eds.), Ecological inference: New methodological strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blais, A., & Nadeau, R. (1996). Measuring strategic voting: A two-step procedure. Electoral Studies, 15, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowler, S., Karp, J. A., & Donovan, T. (2010). Strategic coalition voting: Evidence from New Zealand. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brennan, G., & Hamlin, A. (1998). Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice, 95, 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brennan, G., & Hamlin, A. (1999). On political representation. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cain, B. (1978). Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 639–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calvo, E., & Escolar, M. (2003). The local voter: A geographically weighted approach to ecological inference. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calvo, E., & Murillo, M. V. (2005). When parties meet voters: Assessing political linkages through partisan networks and distributive expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Political Studies, 46(7), 851–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox, G. M. (1997). Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox, G. G., & Shugart, M. (1996). Strategic Voting under Proportional Representation. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 12(2), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  20. Duch, R. M., & Palmer, H. D. (2002). Strategic voting in post-communist democracies? British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, O., & Davis, B. (1953). An alternative to ecological correlation. American Sociological Review, 18, 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  23. Eckstein, Z., & Shachar, R. (2007). Correcting for bias in retrospective data. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 657–675.Google Scholar
  24. Gay, C. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gschwend, T. (2007). Ticket splitting in mixed electoral systems. Reutlingen: SFG-Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2014). Why people vote: estimating the social returns to voting. British Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000271.
  27. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Hill, S. J. (2013). Identifying the effect of all-mail elections on turnout: Staggered reform in the Evergreen state. Political Science Research and Methods, 1(1), 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Beys, B. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 637–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Golosov, G. V. (2010). The effective number of parties: A new approach. Party Politics, 16(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodman, L. (1959). Some alternative to ecological correlation. American Journal of Sociology, 64, 610–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamlin, A., & Jennings, C. (2011). Expressive political behavior: Foundations, scope, and implications. British Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heath, A., & Evans, G. (1994). Tactical voting: concepts, measurements, and findings. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heath, A., Curtice, J., & Jowell, R. (1991). Understanding political change: The British voter 1964–1987. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Herron, M. C., & Sekhon, J. S. (2005). Black candidates and black voters: Assessing the impact of candidate race on uncounted black votes. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 154–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Himmelweit, H., Biberian, M., & Stockdale, J. (1978). Memory of past vote: Implications of a study of bias in recall. British Journal of Political Science, 8(3), 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hobolt, S. B., & Karp, J. A. (2010). Voters and coalition governments. Electoral Studies, 29, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Irwin, G. A., & Van Holsteyn, J. J. M. (2012). Strategic electoral considerations under proportional representation. Electoral Studies, 31, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston, R., & Hay, A. (1983). Voter transition probability estimates: An entropy maximizing approach. European Journal of Political Research, 11(1), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (1991). Tactical voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: An alternative approach. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2000). Ecological inference and entropy maximizing: An alternative estimation procedure for split-ticket voting. Political Analysis, 8(4), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katz, G., & Levin, I. (2011). Modeling electoral coordination: Voters, parties, and legislative seats in Uruguay. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 3(2), 3–41.Google Scholar
  43. Kawai, K., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Inferring strategic voting. American Economic Review, 103(2), 624–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kiewiet, D. R. (2013). The ecology of tactical voting in Britain. Journal of elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(1), 86–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. King, G., Rosen, O., & Tanner, M. A. (2004). Ecological inference: New methodological strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. King, G., Rosen, O., Tanner, M. A., & Wagner, A. F. (2008). Ordinary economic voting in the extraordinary election of Adolf Hitler. The Journal of Economic History, 68(4), 951–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lau, O., Moore, R. T., & Kellerman, M. (2007). Eipack: Ecological inference and higher-dimension data management. R News, 7(2), 43–47.Google Scholar
  50. McCarthy, C., & Ryan, T. (1977). Estimates of voter transition probabilities from the British General Elections of 1974. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 140(1), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. (1972). A general theory of the calculus of voting. In J. Herdon & J. Bernd (Eds.), Mathematical applications in political science VI (pp. 32–78). Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  52. Meffert, M. F., & Gschwend, T. (2010). Strategic coalition voting: Evidence from Austria. Electoral Studies, 29, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Metropolis, M., Rosenbluth, A., Teller, M., & Teller, E. (1953). Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moser, R. C., & Scheiner, E. (2009). Strategic voting in established and new democracies: Ticket splitting in mixed-member electoral systems. Electoral Studies, 28, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Myatt, D. P. (2007). On the theory of strategic voting. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Niemi, R., Whitten, G., & Franklin, M. (1992). Constituency characteristics, individual characteristics, and tactical voting in the 1987 British General Election. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rose, O., Jiang, W., King, G., & Tanner, M. A. (2001). Bayesian and frequentist inference for ecological inference: The RxC case. Statistica Neerlandica, 55(2), 134–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saiegh, S. (2015). Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: Evidence from Latin America. Political Analysis, 23(3), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schnakenberg, K. E. (2014). Group identity and symbolic political behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schuessler, A. A. (2000). The logic of expressive choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Spenkuch, J. (2015). (Ir)rational voters?. Mimeograph: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  62. Tanner, M. A. (1996). Tools for statistical inference: Methods for the exploration of posterior distributions and likelihood functions. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tavits, M., & Annus, T. (2006). Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experience. Electoral Studies, 25, 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Upton, G. (1978). A note on the estimation of voter transition probabilities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 141(1), 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weisberg, H., & Miller, A. (1980). Evaluation of the feeling thermometer: a report ot the National Election Study Board based on data from the 1979 Pilot Study. Mimeograph: University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of the Humanities and Social SciencesCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations