Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 161, Issue 3–4, pp 517–536 | Cite as

Assessing strategic voting in the 2008 US presidential primaries: the role of electoral context, institutional rules, and negative votes

Article

Abstract

We examine the nature and extent of strategic voting in the 2008 US presidential primary. In doing so, we distinguish positive strategic voters—those casting ballots for their second choice in the primary and general election—from negative strategic voters—those casting ballots for a candidate they want to lose in the general election. We find evidence of both types in 2008. Moreover, we show that the likelihood of voting strategically is related to the electoral and institutional context. Specifically, those who prefer trailing candidates and who live in states with open primaries or with elections after John McCain became the presumed nominee were more likely to vote strategically.

Keywords

Negative strategic voting Open primaries Electoral institutions 

References

  1. Abramowitz, A., McGlennon, J., & Rapoport, R. (1981). A note on strategic voting in a primary election. Journal of Politics, 43, 899–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. W. (1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamany, D. (1976). Communications: Cross-over voting and the Democratic party’s reform rules. American Political Science Review, 70, 536–41.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2000). A new approach for modeling strategic voting in multiparty systems. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2002). Should I stay or should I go? Sincere and strategic crossover. In B. E. Cain & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Voting at the political fault line: California’s experiment with the blanket primary (pp. 107–123). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(02), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkeson, L. R. (1999). ‘Sure, I voted for the winner!’: Overreport of the primary vote for the party nominee in the national election studies. Political Behavior, 21(3), 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. American Political Science Review, 79, 804–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartels, L. M. (1987). Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blais, A. (2003). Strategic voting in the 2002 French presidential election. In M. Lewis-Beck (Ed.), The French voter: Before and after the 2002 elections. Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2001). Measuring strategic voting in multiparty plurality elections. Electoral Studies, 20, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burden, B. C. (2005). Minor partis and strategic voting in recent US presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 24, 603–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burden, B. C., & Jones, P. E. (2009). Strategic voting in the USA. In B. Gofman, A. Blais, & S. Bowler (Eds.), Duverger’s law of plurality voting: The logic of party competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. New York,: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Cain, B. E., & Gerber, E. R. (2002). California’s blanket primary experiment. In B. E. Cain & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Voting at the political fault line: California’s experiment with the blanket primary (pp. 3–11). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Callegaro, M., & Disogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cassette, A., Farvaque, E., & Hericourt, J. (2013). Two-round elections, one-round determinants? Evidence from the French municipal elections. Public Choice, 156, 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cherry, T. L., & Kroll, S. (2003). Crashing the party: An experimental investigation of strategic voting in primary elections. Public Choice, 114(3–4), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems (Vol. 7). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deng, Y., Hillygus, D. S., Reiter, J. P., Si, Y., & Zheng, S. (2013). Handling attrition in longitudinal studies: The case for refreshment samples. Statistical Science, 28(2), 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Donovan, T. (2008). The Limbaugh effect: A rush to judging cross-party raiding in the 2008 democratic nomination contests. The Forum, 6, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geer, J. (1986). Rules governing presidential primaries. Journal of Politics, 48, 1006–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerber, E. R., & Morton, R. B. (1998). Primary election systems and representation. Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 2.Google Scholar
  24. Hagen, M. G. & Johnston, R. (2004). Causes and consequences of crossover voting in presidential primaries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 15–18, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Hedlund, R. D. (1977). Cross-over voting in a 1976 presidential primary. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 498–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hedlund, R. D., & Watts, M. W. (1986). The Wisconsin open primary, 1968–1984. American Politics Research, 14, 55–73.Google Scholar
  27. Helman, S. & Issenberg, S. (2008). McCain becomes presumptive GOP nominee. The Boston Globe, February 7.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, M., Hillygus, D., & Tompson, T. (2010). ‘Sour grapes’ or rational voting? Voter decision making among thwarted primary voters in 2008. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillygus, D. S. (2007). The dynamics of voter decision making among minor party supporters: The 2000 US presidential election. British Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jewell, M. E. (1974). A caveat on the expanding use of presidential primaries. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 279–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnston, R. J., & Pattie, C. J. (1991). Tactical voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: An alternative approach. British Journal of Political Science, 21(01), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufmann, K. M., Gimpel, J. G., & Hoffman, A. (2003). A promise fulfilled? Open primaries and repreentation. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 457–76.Google Scholar
  33. Kousser, T. (2002). Crossing over when it counts: How the motives of voters in blanket primaries are revealed by their actions in general elections. In B. E. Cain & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Voting at the political fault line: California’s experiment with the blanket primary (pp. 143–170). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kruse, Y., Callegaro, M., Dennis, J., Subias, S., Lawrence, M., DiSogra, C., & Tompson, T. (2009). Panel conditioning and attrition in the AP-Yahoo! News Election Panel Study. In 64th AAPOR Conference. Hollywood, FL: AAPOR.Google Scholar
  35. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1972). A general theory of the calculus of voting. In J. F. Herndon & J. L. Bernd (Eds.), Mathematical applications in political science. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  36. Merolla, J. L. (2009). The effect of information signals on strategic voting in mock mayoral elections. Political Behavior, 31(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mooney, A. (2008). Limbaugh urges listeners to vote for Clinton. CNN Political Ticker, December 5.Google Scholar
  38. Moulitsa, M. (2012). Announcing operation hilarity: Let’s keep the GOP clown show going! Daily Kos, February 15.Google Scholar
  39. Niemi, R. G., Nadeau, R., & Levine, J. (1993). Innumeracy about minority populations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Overacker, L. (1926). The presidential primary. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  41. Pierce, R. (2003). Modelling electoral second choices: thwarted voters in the United States, France, and Russia. Electoral Studies, 22(2), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Primo, D. M., Jacobsmeier, M. L., & Milyo, J. (2007). Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4), 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ranney, A. (1972). Turnout and representation in presidential primary elections. American Political Science Review, 66, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Safire, W. (2008). The Bradley effect. The New York Times, September 28, MM30.Google Scholar
  45. Salvanto, A. M., & Wattenberg, M. P. (2002). Peeking under the blanket: A direct look at crossover voting. In B. Cain & E. Gerber (Eds.), Voting at the political fault line (pp. 124–142). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sides, J., Cohen, J., & Citrin, J. (2002). The causes and consequences of crossover voting. In B. E. Cain & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Voting at the political fault line (pp. 77–106). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Southwell, P. L. (1989). Strategic voting in the 1984 Democratic presidential primaries. Social Science Journal, 26(4), 445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Southwell, P. L. (1991). Open versus closed primaries: The effect on strategic voting and candidate fortunes. Social Science Quarterly, 44(4), 789–796.Google Scholar
  49. Stephenson, E. F. (2011). Strategic voting in open primaries: evidence from Rush Limbaugh’s “operation chaos.” Public Choice, 148(3–4), 445–457.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations