Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 157, Issue 1–2, pp 73–90 | Cite as

Bandwagon effects in British elections, 1885–1910

  • Robert Hodgson
  • John Maloney
Article

Abstract

This article investigates possible bandwagons in actual elections rather than the usual opinion poll data. Until 1918, British general elections were staggered over a fortnight or more. We use the eight general elections between 1885 and 1910 to investigate whether there was a general bandwagon or underdog effect as the election progressed. We find that any bandwagon effect was in favor of the party which eventually won the election, not the party gaining seats compared with last time. We also find that a typical election featured an initial bandwagon effect which peaked about halfway through the election and then declined. Its decline appears to be due both to declining enthusiasm for the leading party and to later polls occurring in places where voters were less prone to get on a bandwagon in the first place. The weakening of the bandwagon was correlated to distance of the constituency from London, although it revived to some extent in Scotland.

Keywords

Election Bandwagon Underdog Britain Sequential Swing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for funding the project of which this article is a part; and Jonathan Barry, Andrew Pickering, Adam Zerny and three anonymous referees for Public Choice for their comments on earlier versions of the article.

References

  1. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press. Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70. Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–818. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breuch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). Simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287–1294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruter, M., Erikson, R. S., & Strauss, A. B. (2010). Uncertain candidates, valence, and the dynamics of candidate position-taking. Public Choice, 144(1–2), 153–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callander, S. (2007). Bandwagons and momentum in sequential voting. Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 653–684. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caramani, D. (2000). Elections in Western Europe since 1815: electoral results by constituencies. London: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  10. Ceci, S. J., & Kain, E. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: the impact of attitude polls on polling behaviour. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(2), 228–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig, F. W. S. (1974). British parliamentary election results: 1885–1918. London: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  12. Crano, W. D. (2000). Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence. Group Dynamics, 4(1), 68–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delli Carpini, M. X. (1984). Scooping the voters? The consequences of the networks’ call of the 1980 presidential race. The Journal of Politics, 46(3), 866–885. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleitas, D. W. (1971). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal-information elections. American Political Science Review, 65(2), 434–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1994). Why are American presidential campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 409–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goot, M. (2009). Underdogs, bandwagons or incumbency? Party support at the beginning and end of Australian election campaigns, 1983–2007. Australian Cultural History, 28, 69–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hood, W. R., & Sherif, M. (1962). Verbal report and judgment of an unstructured stimulus. The Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 121–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, J. E. (1983). Election night voting and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 615–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight, B., & Schiff, N. (2010). Momentum and social learning in presidential primaries. Journal of Political Economy, 118(6), 1110–1150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lloyd, T. (1968). The general election of 1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Lott, J. R. (2005). The impact of early media election calls on republican voting rates in Florida’s Western Panhandle counties in 2000. Public Choice, 123(3–4), 349–361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magalhaes, P. C. (2004). In exposure to polls, cognitive mobilization, and voting behavior: the 2002 general elections in Portugal. Research note [online]. Available from: http://www.ics.ul.pt. Accessed 18 May 2011.
  24. McAllister, I., & Studlar, D. T. (1991). Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinion polls and electoral choice in Britain, 1979–1987. The Journal of Politics, 53(3), 720–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macdonald, S. E., & Rabinowitz, G. (1998). Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: valence, position and direction in democratic politics. Electoral Studies, 17(3), 281–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mehrabian, A. (1998). Effects of poll reports on voter preferences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 119–130. Google Scholar
  27. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2000). Learning by voting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  28. Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Amato, T. (1994). Expectations and preferences in British general elections. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 371–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newspaper Press Directory (1846–1976). London: C. Mitchell. Google Scholar
  30. Rhodes James, R. (1963). Rosebery. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Google Scholar
  31. Schofield, N. (2004). Equilibrium in spatial valence models of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(4), 447–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shannon, R. (1999). Gladstone: heroic minister. London: Allen Lane. Google Scholar
  33. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60. Google Scholar
  34. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  35. Sudman, S. (1986). Do exit polls influence voting behavior? Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(3), 331–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vincent, J. R., & Stenton, M. M. (Eds.) (1971). McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book of all elections, 1832–1918. Brighton: Harvester Press. Google Scholar
  38. West, D. M. (1991). Polling effects in election campaigns. Political Behavior, 13(2), 151–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of YorkHeslingtonUK
  2. 2.University of Exeter Business SchoolExeterUK

Personalised recommendations