Public Choice

, Volume 137, Issue 1–2, pp 221–244 | Cite as

What’s in a poll? Incentives for truthful reporting in pre-election opinion surveys

Article

Abstract

We examine the ability of pre-election polls to aggregate information about voter preferences. We show that if the electorate is small and voting costs are negligible, then an equilibrium exists in which citizens report their true political preferences. If the electorate is large or voting costs are significant, however, then no such equilibrium exists because poll respondents possess incentives to influence the voting behavior of others by misreporting their true preferences. We find that when a truthful equilibrium does exist, a poll can raise expected welfare by discouraging turnout among members of the minority.

Keywords

Polling Voting Information aggregation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austen-Smith, D., & Feddersen, T. (2005). Deliberation and voting rules. In D. Austen-Smith & J. Duggan (Eds.), Social choice and strategic decisions: essays in honor of Jeffrey S. Banks. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  2. Austen-Smith, D., & Feddersen, T. (2006). Deliberation, preference uncertainty, and voting rules. American Political Science Review, 100, 209–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chilton, J. (1998). Strategic poll responses when elections create mandates. Public Choice, 94, 21–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coughlan, P. (2000). In defense of unanimous jury verdicts: mistrials, communication, and strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 94, 375–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fey, M. (1997). Stability and coordination in Duverger’s Law: a formal model of preelection polls and strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 91, 135–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerardi, D., & Yariv, L. (2003). Putting your ballot where your mouth is—an analysis of collective choice with communication. Working paper, Department of Economics, Yale University. Google Scholar
  7. Goeree, J., & Grosser, J. (2007). Welfare reducing polls. Economic Theory, 31, 51–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meirowitz, A. (2005a). In defense of exclusionary deliberation: communication and voting with private beliefs and values. Working paper, Department of Politics, Princeton University. Google Scholar
  9. Meirowitz, A. (2005b). Polling games and information revelation in the Downsian framework. Games and Economic Behavior, 51, 464–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Palfrey, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1983). A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice, 41, 7–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taylor, C., & Yildirim, H. (2005). Public information and electoral bias. Working paper, Department of Economics, Duke University. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornerstone ResearchWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations