Public Choice

, Volume 148, Issue 3–4, pp 445–457 | Cite as

Strategic voting in open primaries: evidence from Rush Limbaugh’s “operation chaos”

Article

Abstract

Open primaries create the possibility of strategic crossover voting. On his March 3, 2008 program and subsequent broadcasts, radio personality Rush Limbaugh called on his listeners to extend the Democratic presidential contest by crossing over to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Using voter registration data from North Carolina and election return data from Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (states with open, semi-closed, and closed primaries, respectively), I find no evidence of a Limbaugh-motivated switch in political party registration or of a large or statistically significant Limbaugh-motivated increase in voting for Sen. Clinton.

Keywords

Strategic voting Open primary Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Barack Obama 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brennan, H. G., & Lomasky, L. E. (1993). Democracy and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan, J. M. (1954). Individual choice in voting and the market. Journal of Political Economy, 62, 334–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burden, B. C., & Jones, P. E. (2006). Strategic voting in the United States. Unpublished paper, Harvard University, May. Google Scholar
  4. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  5. Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th edn.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  6. MacGillis, A., & McSlevin, P. (2008). Did Rush Limbaugh tilt result in Indiana? Washington Post, May 8, A1. Google Scholar
  7. Marinucci, C. (2008). Limbaugh sows seeds of ‘chaos’ in Dems’ race. San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, A1. Google Scholar
  8. Sides, J. M., Cohen, J., & Citrin, J. (1999). The causes and consequences of crossover voting in the 1998 California elections. University of California Institute for Governmental Studies, Working Paper 99-3. Google Scholar
  9. Silva, M. (2008). Indiana: don’t ‘Rush’ to conclusions. The Swamp (Chicago Tribune’s Washington Bureau blog), May 7. Google Scholar
  10. Southwell, P. (1991). Open versus closed primaries: the effect on strategic voting and candidate fortunes. Social Science Quarterly, 72(4), 789–796. Google Scholar
  11. Tullock, G. (1967). Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  12. Tullock, G. (1971). The charity of the uncharitable. Western Economic Journal, 9, 379–392. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBerry CollegeMount BerryUSA

Personalised recommendations