Political Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 571–591 | Cite as

Candidate Choice Without Party Labels:

New Insights from Conjoint Survey Experiments
  • Patricia A. KirklandEmail author
  • Alexander Coppock
Original Paper


In the absence of party labels, voters must use other information to determine whom to support. The institution of nonpartisan elections, therefore, may impact voter choice by increasing the weight that voters place on candidate dimensions other than partisanship. We hypothesize that in nonpartisan elections, voters will exhibit a stronger preference for candidates with greater career and political experience, as well as candidates who can successfully signal partisan or ideological affiliation without directly using labels. To test these hypotheses, we conducted conjoint survey experiments on both nationally representative and convenience samples that vary the presence or absence of partisan information. The primary result of these experiments indicates that when voters cannot rely on party labels, they give greater weight to candidate experience. We find that this process unfolds differently for respondents of different partisan affiliations: Republicans respond to the removal of partisan information by giving greater weight to job experience while Democrats respond by giving greater weight to political experience. Our results lend microfoundational support to the notion that partisan information can crowd out other kinds of candidate information.


Nonpartisan elections Local elections Voter behavior Conjoint experiments 



The authors thank Justin Phillips, Don Green, Robert Shapiro, Winston Lin, Benjamin Goodrich, Shigeo Hirano, Jeffrey Lax, and Yotam Margalit for helpful comments and feedback. This research was supported by a Dissertation Development Grant from the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9414_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 2623 KB)


  1. Adrian, C. R. (1959). A typology for nonpartisan elections. Political Research Quarterly, 12(2), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. L. (2003). Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansak K, Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T (2017) Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Unpublished ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel MM, Hainmueller J, Margalit YM (2015) Policy design and domestic support for international bailouts. Unpublished Manuscript (April)Google Scholar
  5. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis 20(3), 351–368.  10.1093/pan/mpr057
  6. Bonneau, C. W., & Cann, D. M. (2015). Party identification and vote choice in partisan and nonpartisan elections. Political Behavior, 37(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(04), 1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridges, A. (1997). Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest. NJ: Princeton University Press Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. Bullock, C. S. (1984). Racial crossover voting and the election of black officials. The Journal of Politics, 46(01), 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock, C. S., & Campbell, B. A. (1984). Racist or racial voting in the 1981 Atlanta municipal elections. Urban Affairs Review, 20(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Donald, E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, E. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics, 67, 353–385. doi: 10.1017/S0043887115000015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnes, N., & Sadin, M. L. (2015). The “Mill Worker’s Son” Heuristic: How voters perceive politicians from working-class families-and how they really behave in office. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Pess.Google Scholar
  15. Coppock, A. (2017). Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  16. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  18. Ferreira, F., & Gyourko, J. (2009). Do political parties matter? Evidence from U.S. cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira, F., & Gyourko, J. (2014). Does gender matter for political leadership? The case of US mayors. Journal of Public Economics, 112, 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franchino, F., Zucchini, F. (2015). Voting in a multi-dimensional space: A conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3(02), 221–241.  10.1017/psrm.2014.24.
  21. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26(3), 213–224,  10.1002/bdm.1753.
  22. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59(3), 529–548,  10.1111/ajps.12138.
  25. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1), 1–30.  10.1093/pan/mpt024.
  26. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(8), 2395–2400. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1416587112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobson, G. C. (1997). The Politics of Congressional Elections (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  30. Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1983). Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jewell, M. E., & Breaux, D. (1988). The effect of incumbency on state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufmann, K. M. (2004). The Urban Voter: Group Conflict and Mayoral Voting Behavior in American Cities. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkland, P. A. (2016). The business of being mayor: Mayors and fiscal policy in U.S. cities. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  34. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, D. S. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in US house elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lim, C. S., & Snyder, J. M. (2015). Is more information always better? Party cues and candidate quality in US judicial elections. Journal of Public Economics, 128, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(01), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDermott, M. L. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moulder E (2008) Municipal Form of Government: Trends in Structure, Responsibility, and Composition, International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C., pp 27–33. The Municipal Year Book 2008Google Scholar
  41. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The Generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oliver, J. E., & Ha, S. E. (2012). Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pomper, G. (1966). Ethnic and group voting in nonpartisan municipal elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of Partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadin, M. L. (2014). A wealth of ambivalence: How stereotypes about the rich matter for political attitudes and candidate choice. PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  48. Schaffner, B. F., Streb, M., & Wright, G. (2001). Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 7–30.Google Scholar
  49. Squire, P., & Smith, E. R. (1988). The effect of Partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. The Journal of Politics, 50(01), 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strezhnev, A., Berwick, E., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). cjoint: AMCE Estimator for Conjoint Experiments. R package version 2.0.Google Scholar
  51. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(01), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trounstine, J. (2011). Evidence of a local incumbency advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vavreck, L., & Rivers, D. (2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(4), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Welch, S., & Bledsoe, T. (1988). Urban Reform and its Consequences: A Study in Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations