How do voters make decisions in low-information contests? Although some research has looked at low-information voter decision making, scant research has focused on data from actual ballots cast in low-information elections. We focus on three 2008 Pierce County (Washington) Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) elections. Using individual-level ballot image data, we evaluate the structure of individual rankings for specific contests to determine whether partisan cues underlying partisan rankings are correlated with choices made in nonpartisan races. This is the first time that individual-level data from real elections have been used to evaluate the role of partisan cues in nonpartisan races. We find that, in partisan contests, voters make avid use of partisan cues in constructing their preference rankings, rank-ordering candidates based on the correspondence between voters’ own partisan preferences and candidates’ reported partisan affiliation. However, in nonpartisan contests where candidates have no explicit partisan affiliation, voters rely on cues other than partisanship to develop complete candidate rankings.
AbrajanoM. A.NaglerJ.AlvarezR. M. (2005). A natural experiment of race-based and issue voting: The 2001 city of Los Angeles elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 203-218.
2.
AdrianC. R. (1952). Some general characteristics of nonpartisan elections. American Political Science Review, 46, 766-776.
3.
AdrianC. R. (1959). A typology for nonpartisan elections. Western Political Quarterly, 12, 449-458.
4.
AlvarezR. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
AlvarezR. M.KiewietD. R. (2009). Rationality and rationalistic choice in the California recall. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 267-290.
6.
AlvarezR. M.SinclairJ. A. (2015). Nonpartisan primary election reform: Mitigating mischief. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
AnsolabehereS.HiranoS.SnyderJ. M.Jr.UedaM. (2006). Party and incumbency cues in voting: Are they substitutes?Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 119-137.
8.
ArceneauxK.KolodnyR. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 755-770.
9.
BanducciS. A.KarpJ.A.ThrasherM.RallingsC. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29, 903-917.
10.
BartelsL. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709-723.
11.
BartelsL. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
BaumL. (1987). Explaining the vote in judicial elections: The 1984 Ohio Supreme Court elections. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 361-371.
13.
BerelsonB.LazarsfeldP.McPheeW. (1954). Voting. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
BormannN.-C.GolderM. (2013). Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946-2011. Electoral Studies, 32, 360-369.
15.
BoudreauC.ElmendorfC. S.MacKenzieS. A. (2015). Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 843-855.
16.
BradyH. E. (1990). Dimensional analysis of ranking data. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 1017-1048.
17.
BurnettC. M.KoganV. (2015). Ballot (and voter) “exhaustion” under Instant Runoff Voting: An examination of four ranked-choice elections. Electoral Studies, 37, 41-49.
18.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press.
20.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
21.
FowlerJ. H.KamC. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics, 69, 813-827.
22.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
HagensickA. C. (1964). Influences of partisanship and incumbency on a nonpartisan election system. Western Political Quarterly, 17, 117-124.
24.
HallM. G. (2001). State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American Political Science Review, 95, 315-30.
25.
HastieT.TibshiraniR.FriedmanJ. (2016). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. New York, NY: Springer.
26.
HillS. (2002). Fixing elections: The failure of America’s winner take all politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
HillS.RichieR. (2005). Success for Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco. National Civic Review, 94, 65-68.
28.
HoD. E.ImaiK. (2004). The impact of partisan electoral regulation: Ballot effects from the California alphabet lottery, 1978-2002. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dho/research/alphabet.pdf
29.
HorowitzD. L. (1990). Comparing democratic systems. Journal of Democracy, 1, 73-79.
30.
HorowitzD. L. (2003). Electoral systems: A primer for decision makers. Journal of Democracy, 14, 115-127.
31.
KleinD.BaumL. (2001). Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 709-728.
32.
KrebsT. B. (1998). The determinants of candidates’ vote share and the advantages of incumbency in city council elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 921-935.
33.
LieskeJ. (1989). The political dynamics of urban voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 150-174.
34.
LovrichN.Jr.SheldonC. H.WasmannE. (1988). The racial factor in nonpartisan judicial elections: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 807-816.
35.
LupiaA. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
36.
LupiaA.McCubbinsD. M. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MattesK.SpezioM.KimH.TodorovA.AdolphsR.AlvarezR. M. (2010). Predicting election outcomes from positive and negative trait assessments of candidate images. Political Psychology, 31, 41-58.
38.
McDermottM. 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, 270-283.
39.
McDermottM. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 895-918.
40.
McDermottM. L. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. Journal of Politics, 67, 201-219.
41.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291-330.
42.
MondakJ. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167-192.
43.
MuellerJ. E. (1970). Choosing among 133 candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 395-402.
44.
OlsonE. C.HillS. (2002). Big wins for democracy: San Francisco and Vermont vote for Instant Runoff Voting. National Civic Review, 91, 201-204.
45.
PomperG. (1966). Ethnic and group voting in nonpartisan municipal elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 79-97.
46.
PopkinS. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
RahnW. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
48.
RichieR. (2004). Instant Runoff Voting: What Mexico (and others) could learn. Election Law Journal, 3, 501-512.
49.
SchaffnerB. F.StrebM. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559-581.
50.
SchaffnerB. F.StrebM.WrightG. (2001). Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 7-30.
51.
SchuesslerA. A. (2000.). A logic of expressive choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
Shalev-ShwartzS.Ben-DavidS. (2014). Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SigelmanC. K.SigelmanL.WalkoszB. J.NitzM. (1995). Black candidates, White voters: Understanding racial bias in political perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 243-265.
54.
SpezioM. L.RangelA.AlvarezR. M.O’DohertyJ. P.MattesK.TodorovA.. . . AdolphsH. (2008). A neural basis for the effect of candidate appearance on election outcomes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 344-352.
55.
SquireP.SmithE. R. A. N. (1988). The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. Journal of Politics, 50, 169-179.
56.
StrebM. J.FrederickB. (2008). Conditions for competition in low-information judicial elections: The case of intermediate appellate court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 523-537.
57.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623-1626.
58.
WelchS.BledsoeT. (1986). The partisan consequences of nonpartisan elections and the changing nature of urban politics. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 128-139.
59.
WilliamsO. P.AdrianC. R. (1959). The insulation of local politics under the nonpartisan ballot. American Political Science Review, 53, 1052-1063.
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.
