Many legal scholars and political practitioners advocate using election law to increase voters' access to political information, either by providing such information directly on ballots or in ballot pamphlets. To date, however, little empirical evidence exists to guide policymakers and judges charged with weighing the benefits of such legal interventions against any costs they might impose. We address this gap by conducting survey experiments to examine three types of political information that legal interventions can make available or withhold: political party endorsements, endorsements from prominent public officials, and a nonpartisan voter guide describing candidates' policy positions. Our results provide evidence that such legal interventions can yield tangible benefits—namely, helping voters choose candidates whose policy views are similar to their own.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJames F., MerrillSamuelIII, and GrofmanBernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AdamsJames, MerrillSamuelIII, SimasElizabeth N., and StoneWalter J.. 2011. “When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics, 73(1): 17–30.
3.
AlvarezR. Michael and KiewietD. Roderick. 2009. “Rationality and Rationalistic Choice in the California Recall.” British Journal of Political Science, 39(2): 267–290.
4.
BanfieldEdward C. and WilsonJames Q.. 1963. City Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5.
BafumiJoseph and HerronMichael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review, 104(3): 519–542.
6.
BaronDavid P.1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review, 88(1): 33–47.
7.
BartelsLarry M.1996. “Uninformed Voters: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, 40: 194–230.
8.
BlackDuncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making.” Journal of Political Economy, 56: 23–34.
9.
BoudreauCheryl.2009a. “Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences Between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens?” Journal of Politics, 71(3): 964–976.
10.
BoudreauCheryl.2009b. “Making Citizens Smart: When Do Institutions Improve Unsophisticated Citizens' Decisions?” Political Behavior, 31(2): 287–306.
11.
BoudreauCheryl, ElmendorfChristopher S., and MacKenzieScott A.. 2013. “Lost in Space? Shortcuts and Spatial Voting in Low-Information Elections.” Working Paper, University of California, Davis.
12.
BoudreauCheryl and MacKenzieScott A.. 2014. “Informing the Electorate?. How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science, 58(1): 48–62.
13.
BridgesAmy. 1999. Morning Glories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14.
BurnettCraig M. and McCubbinsMathew D.. 2013a. “When Common Wisdom is Neither Common Nor Wisdom: Exploring Voters' Limited Use of Endorsements on Three Ballot Measures.” Minnesota Law Review, 97: 1557–1595.
15.
BurnettCraig M. and McCubbinsMathew D.. 2013b. “Gaming Direct Democracy: How Voters' Views of Job Performance Interact with Elite Endorsements of Ballot Measures.” California Journal of Politics and Policy, 5(4): 627–643.
16.
CampbellAngus, ConversePhilip E., MillerWarren E., and StokesDonald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
17.
CanaryCynthia. 2003. “Know Before You Go: A Case for Publicly Funded Voters' Guides.” Ohio State Law Journal, 64: 81–94.
18.
ClintonJoshua D., JackmanSimon, and RiversDouglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review, 98: 355–370.
19.
CoxMichael P.1977. “A Walk Through Section 552 of the Administrative Procedure Act: The Freedom of Information Act; the Privacy Act; and the Government in the Sunshine Act.” University of Cincinnati Law Review, 43: 969–988.
20.
DeLeonRichard E.1992. Left Coast City. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
21.
DownsAnthony.1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
DruckmanJames N.2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review, 98(4): 671–686.
23.
DruckmanJames N. and LeeperThomas J.. 2012. “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and its Effects.” American Journal of Political Science, 56(4): 875–896.
24.
ElmendorfChristopher S. and SchleicherDavid. 2013. “Informing Consent: Voter Ignorance, Political Parties, and Election Law.” University of Illinois Law Review, 2013(2): 363–431.
25.
EnelowJames M. and HinichMelvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
ErieSteven P., KoganVladimir, and MacKenzieScott A.. 2011. Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
27.
FearonJames. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. PrzeworskiAdam, StokesSusan, and ManinBernard, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
FerejohnJohn. 1986. “Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control.” Public Choice, 50: 5–25.
29.
GainesBrian J., KuklinskiJames H., and QuirkPaul J.. 2007. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis, 15(1): 1–20.
30.
GarziaDiego, TrechselAlexander H., VassilKristjan, and DinasElias. 2014. “Indirect Campaigning—Past, Present and Future of Voting Advice Applications.” In The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective: Voters, Candidates, Parties, and Social Movements. GrofmanBernard, TreschelAlexander H., and FranklinMark, eds. New York: Springer Press.
31.
GarrettElizabeth.1999. “The Law and Economics of ‘Informed Voter’ Ballot Notations.” Virginia Law Review, 85: 1533–1587.
32.
GarrettElizabeth and SmithDaniel A.. 2005. “Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy.” Election Law Journal, 4: 295–328.
33.
GelmanAndrew and KingGary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science, 23(4): 409–451.
34.
GilbertMichael D.2013. “Campaign Finance Disclosure and the Information Tradeoff.” Iowa Law Review, 98: 1847–1894.
35.
GoodnowFrank J.1908. City Government in the United States. New York: Century Co.
36.
GosnellHarold.1937. Machine Politics: Chicago Model. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
GreenDonald E., PalmquistBradley, and SchicklerEric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
38.
HasenRichard L.2013. “A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?” Montana Law Review, 74(1): 53–78.
39.
IyengarShanto, LowensteinDaniel H., and MasketSeth. 2001. “The Stealth Campaign: Experimental Studies of Slate Mail in California.” Journal of Law and Politics: 17(2): 295–332.
40.
JesseeStephen A.2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review, 103(1): 59–81.
41.
JesseeStephen A.2010. “Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics, 72(2): 327–340.
42.
KangMichael S.2003. “Democratizing Direct Democracy: Restoring Voter Competence Through Heuristic Cues and ‘Disclosure Plus.’” UCLA Law Review, 50: 1141–1188.
43.
KatzGabriel, AlvarezR. Michael, CalvoErnesto, EscolarMarcelo, and PomaresJulia. 2011. “Assessing the Impact of Alternative Voting Technologies on Multi-Party Elections: Design Features, Heuristic Processing and Voter Choice.” Political Behavior, 33(2): 247–270.
44.
KaufmannKaren M.2004. The Urban Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45.
KingGary, TomzMichael, and WittenbergJason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses.” American Journal of Political Science Review, 44(2): 347–361.
46.
KoganVladimir and McGheeEric. 2013. “Redistricting: Did Radical Reform Produce Different Results?” In Governing California: Politics, Government, and Public Policy in the Golden State. 3rd ed. RarickEthan, ed. Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press.
47.
KousserThad, PhillipsJustin, and ShorBoris. 2013. “Reform and Representation: Assessing California's Top-Two Primary and Redistricting Commission.” Working Paper, University of California, San Diego.
48.
LupiaArthur.1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review, 88(1): 63–76.
49.
LupiaArthur and McCubbinsMathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
MalbinMichael J., BrusoePeter W., and GlavinBrendan. 2012. “Small Donors, Big Democracy: New York City's Matching Funds as a Model for the Nation and States.” Election Law Journal, 11: 3–20.
51.
ManwellerMatthew. 2011. “The Very Partisan Nonpartisan Top-Two Primary: Understanding What Voters Don't Understand.” Election Law Journal, 10: 255–271.
52.
MarshallWilliam P.2004. “False Campaign Speech and the First Amendment.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153: 285–323.
53.
MasketSeth. 2013. “Polarization Interrupted? California's Experiment with the Top-Two Primary.” In Governing California: Politics, Government, and Public Policy in the Golden State. 3rd ed. RarickEthan, ed. Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press.
54.
McDermottMonika L.2005. “Candidate Occupations and Voter Information Shortcuts.” Journal of Politics, 67: 201–219.
55.
MillerWarren E. and ShanksJ. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
56.
OliverJ. Eric. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
57.
PooleKeith T.2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
PooleKeith T., LewisJeffrey, LoJames, and CarrollRoyce. 2011. “Scaling Roll Call Votes with wnominate in R.” Journal of Statistical Software, 42(14): 1–21.
59.
PooleKeith T. and RosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
PopkinSamuel L.1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
PosnerRichard. 2013. Reflections on Judging. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
62.
PrimoDavid M.2013. “Information at the Margin: Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws, Ballot Issues, and Voter Knowledge.” Election Law Journal, 12(2): 114–129.
63.
RakoveMilton.1976. Don't Make No Waves…Don't Back No Losers: An Insider's Analysis of the Daley Machine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
64.
San Francisco Planning Department. (2012). “Socio-economic Profiles for 2012 Supervisorial Districts.” May12, 2012.
65.
SchleicherDavid. 2007. “Why Is There No Partisan Competition in City Council Elections: The Role of Election Law.” Journal of Law and Politics, 14: 419–73.
66.
ShorBoris and RogowskiJon C.. 2010. “Congressional Voting by Spatial Reasoning.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., September2010.
67.
SimpsonDick.2001. Rogues, Rebels, and Rubber Stamps. Boulder: Westview Press.
68.
SnidermanPaul M. and BullockJohn G.. 2004. “A Consistency Theory of Public Opinion and Political Choice: The Hypothesis of Menu Dependence.” In Studies in Public Opinion. SarisWillem E. and SnidermanPaul M., eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
69.
SnidermanPaul M. and StiglitzEdward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
70.
SonensheinRaphael J.1993. Politics in Black and White: Race and Power in Los Angeles. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
71.
StephanopoulosNicholas O.2013. “Elections and Alignment.” Paper presented at the Chicago Junior Faculty Workshop, DePaul University College of Law.
StoneWalter J. and SimasElizabeth N.. 2010. “Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, 54(2): 371–388.
74.
SwanstromTodd. 1988. The Crisis of Growth Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
75.
TomzMichael and Van HouwelingRobert P.. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review, 103(1): 83–98.
76.
TrounstineJessica. 2008. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
