Advertisement

Fit for the Job: Candidate Qualifications and Vote Choice in Low Information Elections

  • Lonna Rae Atkeson
  • Brian T. HamelEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Cues and heuristics—like party, gender, and race/ethnicity—help voters choose among a set of candidates. We consider candidate professional experience—signaled through occupation—as a cue that voters can use to evaluate candidates’ functional competence for office. We outline and test one condition under which citizens are most likely to use such cues: when there is a clear connection between candidate qualifications and the particular elected office. We further argue that voters in these contexts are likely to make subtle distinctions between candidates, and to vote accordingly. We test our account in the context of local school board elections, and show—through both observational analyses of California election results and a conjoint experiment—that (1) voters favor candidates who work in education; (2) that voters discriminate even among candidates associated with education by only favoring those with strong ties to students; and (3) that the effects are not muted by partisanship. Voters appear to value functional competence for office in and of itself, and use cues in the form of candidate occupation to assess who is and who is not fit for the job.

Keywords

Low information elections Voting behavior Heuristics Occupation Conjoint experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Kathleen Hale, participants in UCLA’s Political Psychology lab and at MPSA 2018, as well as the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts. Brian Hamel acknowledges the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program for support. Replication code and data are available at  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1HPT9N. All errors are our responsibility.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41(1), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahler, D. J. (2014). Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkeson, L. R., & Partin, R. W. (2001). Candidate advertisements, media coverage, and citizen attitudes: The agendas and roles of senators and governors in a federal system. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 795–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barreto, M. A., Villarreal, M., & Woods, N. D. (2005). Metropolitan Latino political behavior: Voter turnout and candidate preference in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bianco, W. T. (1984). Strategic decisions on candidacy in U.S. congressional districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9(2), 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond, J. R., Fleisher, R., & Talbert, J. C. (1997). Partisan differences in candidate quality in open seat House races, 1976-1994. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 182–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Jacobson, G. C., & Grant, J. T. (2000). Question wording and the House vote choice: Some experimental evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bullock, C. S., III. (1994). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, districting formats, and the election of African Americans. Journal of Politics, 56(4), 1098–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock, C. S., III, & Campbell, B. A. (1984). Racist or racial voting the 1981 Atlanta municipal elections. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler, D. M., & Powell, E. N. (2014). Understanding the party brand: Experimental evidence on the role of valence. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadei, E. (2018). Why an election tradition is banned in other states. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved June 9, 2018, from, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article207850079.html.
  13. Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. R. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford, E. (2018). How nonpartisan ballot design conceals partisanship: A survey experiment of school board members in two states. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  16. Dubois, P. L. (1984). Voting cues in nonpartisan trial court elections: A multivariate assessment. Law and Society Review, 18(3), 395–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erikson, R. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle 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 U.S. mayors. Journal of Public Economics, 112, 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hersh, E. D., & Schaffner, B. F. (2013). Targeted campaign appeals and the value of ambiguity. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 520–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huddy, L. (1994). The political significance of voters’ gender stereotypes”. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics: New directions in political psychology. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  24. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of offices. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1981). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kirkland, P. A., & Coppock, A. (2017). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9414-8.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, D., & Baum, L. (2001). Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 709–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates’ ideological orientations? Journal of Politics, 62(2), 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krasno, J. S., & Green, D. P. (1988). Preempting quality challengers in House elections. Journal of Politics, 50(4), 920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lien, P. (1998). Does the gender gap in political attitudes and behavior vary across racial groups? Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 869–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Longoria, T., Jr. (1999). The impact of office on cross-racial voting: Evidence from the 1996 Milwaukee mayoral election. Urban Affairs Review, 34(4), 596–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lublin, D. I. (1994). Quality, not quantity: Strategic politicians in U.S. Senate elections, 1952-1990. Journal of Politics, 56(1), 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Matson, M., & Fine, T. S. (2006). Gender, ethnicity and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McDermott, M. L. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mechtel, M. (2013). It’s the occupation, stupid! Explaining candidates’ success in low-information elections. European Journal of Political Economy, 33(2), 53–70.Google Scholar
  40. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 29(2), 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mueller, J. E. (1970). Choosing among 133 candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(3), 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakanishi, M., Cooper, L. G., & Kassarjian, H. H. (1974). Voting for a political candidate under conditions of minimal information. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Partin, R. W. (2001). Campaign intensity and voter information: A look at gubernatorial contests. American Politics Research, 29(2), 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pomper, G. M. (1975). Voters’ choice: Varieties of American electoral behavior. New York: Dodd Meade.Google Scholar
  45. Popkin, S. L. (1994). 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(2), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rapoport, R. B., Metcalf, K. L., & Hartman, J. A. (1989). Candidate traits and voter inferences: An experimental study. Journal of Politics, 51(4), 917–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2006). Where women run: Gender and party in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Sniderman, P. M. (2017). The democratic faith: Essays on democratic citizenship. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Squire, P. (1989). Challengers in U.S. Senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14(4), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Squire, P., & Smith, E. (1988). The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. Journal of Politics, 50(1), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trounstine, J. (2011). Evidence of a local incumbency advantage”. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vanderleeuw, J. M. (1990). A city in transition: The impact of changing composition on voting behavior”. Social Science Quarterly, 71(2), 326–338.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations