Ideology and Vote Choice in U.S. Mayoral Elections: Evidence from Facebook Surveys

Original Paper

Abstract

City elections in the U.S. are widely thought to be low-information contests decided by non-ideological factors. This consensus casts doubt on the possibility of electoral accountability in cities, and renders recent evidence of municipal responsiveness puzzling. However, our knowledge of how voters actually behave in local elections is severely limited by a lack of individual-level survey data collected from local contests. Using three such original surveys, I re-examine the role of ideology in mayoral elections, recruiting samples of local voters via geotargeted Facebook advertisements. In two large cities, I find ideology is a powerful and independent predictor of vote choice. Using a panel design, I find voters learn the relative ideological positions of candidates over the course of a campaign, and that learning causally impacts vote choice. The effect of ideology also replicates in a conjoint experiment fielded to a sample of small-city voters in another region. Electoral accountability is thus a plausible explanation for ideological responsiveness in U.S. cities, and the methodological tools introduced here can now be applied to a variety of questions about local voter behavior.

Keywords

Local politics Ideology Voting behavior United States 

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9420_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1252 KB)

References

  1. Abrajano, M., Nagler, J., & Michael Alvarez, R. (2005). A natural experiment of race-based and issue voting: The 2001 city of Los Angeles elections. American Politics Quarterly, 58(2), 203–218.Google Scholar
  2. Adweek. (2016). Number of Facebook users in the United States as of January 2015, by age group (in millions). In Statista—The Statistics Portal. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://www.statista.com/statistics/398136/us-facebook-user-age-groups/.
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 714–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K. (2006). The federal face of voting: Are elected officials held accountable for the functions relevant to their office? Political Psychology, 27(5), 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, R. D., & Carnes, N. (2012). Holding mayors accountable: New York’s executives from Koch to Bloomberg. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto, M. (2007). Si Se Puede! Latino candidates and the mobilization of Latino voters. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retrospective voting. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 844–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boucher, D. (2015). Nashville mayoral election: Five takeaways. In The Tennessean August 7. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/07/5-takeaways--nashvilles-mayoral-election/31102247/.
  10. Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C. S., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2015). Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Research Quarterly, 68(4), 843–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broockman, D. E., & Green, D. P. (2014). Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior, 36(2), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnett, C. M., & Kogan, V. (2017). The politics of potholes: Service quality and retrospective voting in local elections. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 302–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Carnes, N., & Lupu, N. (2016). Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Benedictis-Kessner, J., & Warshaw, C. (2016). Mayoral partisanship and the size of municipal government. Journal of Politics (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, K. L., & Kogan, V. (2016). Pushing the city limits: Policy responsiveness in municipal government. Urban Affairs Review, 52(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2012). Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fausset, R. (2015). In Mayoral race, Nashville politics forgets its manners. The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/mudslinging-in-race-for-nashville-mayor-shakes-citys-political-scene.html?_r=0.
  21. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerber, E. R., & Hopkins, D. J. (2011). When mayors matter: Estimating the impact of mayoral partisanship on city policy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hajnal, Z. (2006). Changing white attitudes toward black political leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hajnal, Z., & Trounstine, J. (2014). What underlies urban politics? Race, class, ideology, partisanship, and the urban vote. Urban Affairs Review, 50(1), 63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirano, S., Lenz, G. S., Pinkovskiy, M., & Snyder, J. M. (2015). Voter learning in state primary elections. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopkins, D. J., & Pettingill, L. M. (2017). Retrospective voting in big-city US mayoral elections. Political Science Research and Methods (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  30. Jacoby, W. G. (2009). Ideology and vote choice in the 2004 election. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 584–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joesten, D. A., & Stone, W. J. (2014). Reassessing proximity voting: Expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 740–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufmann, K. M. (1998). Racial conflict and political choice a study of mayoral voting behavior in Los Angeles and New York. Urban Affairs Review, 33(5), 655–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaufmann, K. (2004). The urban voter: Group conflict and mayoral voting in American cities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Kirkland, P. A., & Coppock, A. (2017). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  37. Knight, K. (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: Ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics, 47(3), 828–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Americans’ perceptions of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marschall, M., Shah, P., & Ruhil, A. (2011). The study of local elections. Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meredith, M. (2013). Exploiting friends-and-neighbors to estimate coattail effects. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 742–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver, J. E. (2012). Local elections and the politics of small-scale democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Oliver, J. E., & Shang, E. H. (2007). Vote choice in suburban elections. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peytchev, A. (2009). Survey breakoff. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 74–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryan, T. J. (2012). What makes us click? Demonstrating incentives for angry discourse with digital-age field experiments. Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1138–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Samuels, D. J., & Zucco, C. (2013). Using Facebook as a subject recruitment tool for survey-experimental research. Working paper, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101458.
  48. Samuels, D., & Zucco, C. (2014). The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Shor, B., & Rogowski, J. C. (2016). Ideology and the US congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  51. Stein, R. M., Ulbig, S. G., & Post, S. S. (2005). Voting for minority candidates in multiracial/multiethnic communities. Urban Affairs Review, 41(2), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2014). Representation in municipal government. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 605–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trounstine, J. (2013). Turnout and incumbency in local elections. Urban Affairs Review, 49(2), 167–189.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. Veazey, K. (2015a). A closer look: Strickland’s crime plan heavy on juveniles, which concerns some. The Commercial Appeal, September 20. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/government/city/a-closer-look-stricklands-crime-plan-heavy-on-juveniles-which-concern-some-1f3d8262-f920-3927-e053-0-328432381.html.
  56. Veazey, K. (2015b). Wharton, Strickland release detailed crime plans. The Commercial Appeal, September 9. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/government/city/wharton-strickland-release-detailed-crime-plans-ep-1266377385-327921431.html.
  57. Zhang, B., Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. D., Marlon, J., Rosenthal, S., & Leiserowitz, A. (2017). Quota sampling using Facebook advertisements can generate nationally representative opinion estimates. Working paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University. Retrieved July 5, 2017 from http://qssi.psu.edu/new-faces-papers-2017/zhang-quota-sampling-using-facebook-advertisements.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations