Atlantic Economic Journal

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 216–221 | Cite as

Expressiveness and voting: Alternative evidence

  • Richard J. Cebula
Articles

Abstract

Using aggregate time series analysis, this empirical study extends the Copeland and Laband [2002] analysis of expressive voting. After allowing for economic considerations in the form of tax rates and inflation, it is found that even the aggregate voter participation rate may reflect emotional voting behavior. The Vietnam War, Watergate, public dissatisfaction with government, and the opportunity to participate in Presidential elections, each of which can be viewed at some level as an issue evoking emotional responses rather than mere cost-benefit computations, all prove to significantly affect voter participation rates.

Keywords

Time Series Empirical Study International Economic Public Finance Emotional Response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H.; Simon, D. M. “Turnout in American National Elections,” In S. Long (Ed.),Research in Micropolitics, 1, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Ashenfelter, O.; Kelley, S., Jr. “Determinants of Participation in Presidential Elections,”Journal of Law and Economics 18, 1975, pp. 695–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brazel, Y.; Silberberg, E. “Is the Act of Voting Rational?”Public Choice, 16, 1973, pp. 51–8.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M.; Tullock, G.The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. Cebula, R. J. “The Electoral College and Voter Participation: Evidence on Two Hypotheses Using Results from the 1996 Presidential Election,”Atlantic Economic Journal, 30, 2001, pp. 67–75.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Economic Advisors.Economic Report of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. ——.Economic Report of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, G. W.; Munger, M. C. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in 1982 U.S. House Elections,”American Political Science Review, 83, 1989, pp. 217–31.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, A.An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row, 1957.Google Scholar
  10. Green, D. P.; Shapiro, I.Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. Greene, K. V.; Nikolaev, O. “Voter Participation and the Redistributive State,”Public Choice, 98, 1999, pp. 213–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IDEA: “Voter Turnout from 1945–97,” 1999, www.IDEA.int/turnout/northamerica/usa.html.Google Scholar
  13. Lapp, M. “Incorporating Groups into Rational Choice Explanations of Turnout: An Empirical Test,”Public Choice, 98, 1999, pp. 171–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riker, W. H.; Ordeshook, P. C. “A Theory to the Calculus of Voting,”American Political Science Review, 62, 1973, pp. 25–43.Google Scholar
  15. Schwartz, T. “Your Vote Counts on Account of the Way It is Counted: An Institutional Solution to the Paradox of Voting,”Public Choice, 54, 1987, pp. 101–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tiebout, C. M. “A Pure Theory of Public Expenditures,”Journal of Political Economy, 64, 1956, pp. 416–24.Google Scholar
  17. Tullock, G. “Public Decisions as Public Goods,”Journal of Political Economy, 79, 1971, pp. 913–18.Google Scholar
  18. White, H. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity,”Econometrica, 48, 1980, pp. 817–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Cebula
    • 1
  1. 1.Armstrong Atlantic State UniversityU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations