Eastern Economic Journal

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 331–349 | Cite as

Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting

  • Isaac Duerr
  • Thomas KnightEmail author
  • Lindsey Woodworth
Original Article


We examine the impact of providing voters with additional information related to candidates’ views on particular issues on voters’ tendencies to cross the party line. When we randomize the provision of this information in an experimental setting where participants are undergraduate students at a large public university, we find that “treatment” increases the likelihood that a voter will cross the party line by an average of 4 percentage points. This corresponds to an approximately 20% decrease in partisan voting. Surprisingly, treatment effects are not more pronounced among voters whose opposing party’s candidate is the relatively moderate candidate in the election. They are, however, more pronounced among Democrat voters. These findings suggest that transparency, with respect to candidates’ views on particular issues, has a corroding effect on partisanship among a subset of voters.


Voting Political campaigning Information Public Choice 

JEL Classification




  1. Adams, James, Lawrence Ezrow, and Zeynep Somer-Topcu. 2011. Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 370–382.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and N. Valentino. 1994. Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review 88 (4): 829–838.Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A., S. Kumar, R. Pande, and F. Su. 2010. Do informed voters make better choices? Experimental evidence from urban India. Unpublished manuscript.
  4. Black, Duncan. 1948. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 56 (1): 23–34.Google Scholar
  5. Blais, André, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2001. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research 40 (1): 81–91.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2006. The resilient voter: Moving toward closure in the debate over negative campaigning and turnout. Journal of Politics 68 (3): 684–696.Google Scholar
  7. Cho, Sungdai, and James Endersby. 2003. Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice 114 (3/4): 275–293.Google Scholar
  8. Dow, Jay. 1998. Directional and proximity models of voter choice in recent US presidential elections. Public Choice 96 (3/4): 259–270.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–150.Google Scholar
  10. Gerber, Alan, James Gimpel, Donald Green, and Daron Shaw. 2011. How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review 105 (01): 135–150.Google Scholar
  11. Gerber, Alan, and Donald Green. 2000. The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653–663.Google Scholar
  12. Gilljam, Mikael. 1997. Symposium. The directional theory of issue voting: I: The directional theory under the magnifying glass: A reappraisal. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9 (1): 5–12.Google Scholar
  13. Harrington Jr., J., and G. Hess. 1996. A spatial theory of positive and negative campaigning. Games and Economic Behavior 17 (2): 209–229.Google Scholar
  14. Hinich, Melvin. 1977. Equilibrium in spatial voting: The median voter result is an artifact. Journal of Economic Theory 16 (2): 208–219.Google Scholar
  15. Hotelling, Harold. 1929. Stability in competition. The Economic Journal 39 (153): 41–57.Google Scholar
  16. Kendall, Chad, Tommaso Nannicini, and Francesco Trebbi. 2015. How do voters respond to information? Evidence from a randomized campaign. American Economic Review 105 (1): 322–353.Google Scholar
  17. Knight, Thomas, Fan Li, and Lindsey Woodworth. 2017. It’s my party and I’ll vote how I want to: Experimental evidence of directional voting in two-candidate elections. Eastern Economic Journal 43 (4): 660–676.Google Scholar
  18. Krämer, Jürgen, and Hans Rattinger. 1997. The proximity and the directional theories of issue voting: Comparative results for the USA and Germany. European Journal of Political Research 32 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
  19. Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 2010. Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments. Electoral Studies 29 (3): 460–471.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King. 1999. No evidence of directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8 (1): 21–33.Google Scholar
  21. Listhaug, Ola, Stuart Macdonald, and George Rabinowitz. 1990. A comparative spatial analysis of European party systems. Scandinavian Political Studies 13 (3): 227–254.Google Scholar
  22. Merrill, Samuel. 1993. Voting behavior under the directional spatial model of electoral competition. Public Choice 77 (4): 739–756.Google Scholar
  23. Merrill, Samuel, and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice: A new synthesis and an illustrative test of competing models. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9 (1): 25–48.Google Scholar
  24. Nickerson, David. 2008. Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review 102 (01): 49–57.Google Scholar
  25. Pierce, Roy. 1997. Symposium. The directional theory of issue voting: III: Directional versus proximity models: Verisimilitude as the criterion. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9 (1): 61–74.Google Scholar
  26. Polborn, Mattias, and David Yi. 2006. Informative positive and negative campaigning. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1 (4): 351–371.Google Scholar
  27. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Macdonald. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.Google Scholar
  28. Rabinowitz, George, Stuart Macdonald, and Old Listhaug. 1991. New players in an old game party strategy in multiparty systems. Comparative Political Studies 24 (2): 147–185.Google Scholar
  29. Stokes, Donald. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57 (02): 368–377.Google Scholar
  30. Tomz, Michael, and Robert van Houweling. 2008. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review 102 (3): 303–318.Google Scholar
  31. Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 91 (9): 865–883.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EEA 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.University of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations