This paper investigates whether polarized issues weigh more heavily in voters’ electoral choices. To address this question, we formulate a methodology that uses conjoint experiments to measure how responsive respondents’ electoral choices are to agreeing or disagreeing with candidates’ policy positions on policy issues, which we argue reflects their importance. Our approach is grounded in the potential outcomes framework and designed to minimize the burden on respondents. Immediately after the 2022 congressional midterm elections, we implemented this approach on a nationally representative sample of 2,109 U.S. registered voters. Using the resulting estimates, we measure the correlation between issue importance and their polarization. We consider two types of political polarization: policy and partisan polarization. Our findings reveal that partisan polarization exhibits a strong and significant correlation with issue importance, whereas policy polarization does not. This offers new insights into the electoral behavior of American voters.
AbramsonS. F.KocakK.MagazinnikA. (2022). What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments?American Journal of Political Science, 66(4), 1008–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12714
2.
AlvarezR. M.NaglerJ. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 55–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991747
BaldassarriD.GelmanA. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. AJS; American journal of sociology, 114(2), 408–446. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1010098
5.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2022). Using conjoint experiments to analyze election outcomes: The essential role of the average marginal component effect. Political Analysis, 31(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.16
6.
BartleJ.LaycockS. (2012). Telling more than they can know? Does the most important issue really reveal what is most important to voters?Electoral Studies, 31(4), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.07.005
7.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955648
8.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x
9.
ClintonJ. D.AdamM. (2001). Agenda constrained legislator ideal points and the spatial voting model. Political Analysis, 9(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/polana/9.3.242
10.
CoverT. M.ThomasJ. A. (2005). Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons.
11.
DennisonJ. (2019). A Review of public issue salience: Concepts, determinants and effects on voting. Political Studies Review, 17(4), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918819264
12.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.
13.
FowlerA. (2020). Partisan intoxication or policy voting?Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 141–179. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018027a
14.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG.ZigerellL. J. (2017). Developing standards for post-hoc weighting in population-based survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2017.2
15.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
16.
HanrettyC.LauderdaleB. E.VivyanN. (2020). A choice-based measure of issue importance in the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12470
17.
HoriuchiY.SmithD. M.YamamotoT. (2018). Measuring voters’ multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 election. Political Analysis, 26(2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.2
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
20.
JohnsR. (2010). Measuring issue salience in British elections: Competing interpretations of ‘most important issue’. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908325254
21.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to west Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101
22.
LeeperT. J.JoshuaR. (2020). More important, but for what exactly? The insignificant role of subjective issue importance in vote decisions. Political Behavior, 42(1), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9494-0
23.
LenzG. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.
24.
MatějkaF.TabelliniG. (2020). Electoral competition with rationally inattentive voters. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(3), 1899–1935. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa042
25.
McCartyN. (2019). Polarization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
26.
MiratrixL. W.SekhonJ. S.TheodoridisA. G.CamposL. F. (2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.1
27.
NiemiR. G.BartelsL. M. (1985). New measures of issue salience: An evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1212–1220. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130815
28.
RabinowitzG.MacdonaldS. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956436
29.
RikerW. H. (1983). Political theory: The art of heresthetics. In FinifterA. (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 47–67). American Political Science Association.
30.
SchofieldN.MartinA. D.QuinnK. M.WhitfordA. B. (1998). Multiparty electoral competition in The Netherlands and Germany: A model based on multinomial probit. Public Choice, 97(3), 257–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005025522565
SidesJ.TausanovitchC.VavreckL. (2022). The bitter end: The 2020 presidential campaign and the challenge to American democracy. Princeton University Press.
33.
SimasE. N.OzerA. L. (2021). Polarization, candidate positioning, and political participation in the US. Electoral Studies, 73, Article 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102370
34.
ThurnerP. W. (2000). The empirical application of the spatial theory of voting in multiparty systems with random utility models. Electoral Studies, 19(4), 493–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-3794(99)00025-6
35.
TitelmanN.LauderdaleB. E. (2024). The effects of party labels on vote choice with realistic candidate differentiation. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2024.20
36.
VavreckL. (2009). The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton University Press.
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.
