Do citizens turnout to vote because of changes in their personal financial situation or are they influenced by the nation's economic performance? Previous research on this question is far from united. We attempt to unify the disparate literature on the effects of pocketbook and sociotropic evaluations on voter turnout in midterm and presidential elections. Our analysis of ANES data from 1978 to 2004, based on a reference-dependent model of voter turnout, indicates that both pocketbook and sociotropic considerations affect individuals' decision of whether to vote in midterm elections. Those who perceive that over the last year their own financial situation has improved relative to the economy are less likely to vote than those who view the economy as outperforming their own financial situation.Keywords Voter turnout Á Sociotropic Á Pocketbook Á Economic statusThe disconnect between pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans and the preoccupations of their politicians…has yet to grow into a political wave that could sweep significant numbers of lawmakers from power next year, but both parties face risks if they fail to pivot their attention to economic issues.
It is well documented that the number of interest groups lobbying a piece of legislation in Congress varies greatly. While most legislation generates little to no activity, the number of groups interested in a bill can grow into the hundreds. The challenge for scholars is to explain these behavioral differences. Using a population ecology approach to explain interest-group populations, it is argued that the number of groups lobbying a bill is influenced by the political context. Using data generated by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, this article demonstrates how the actions of members of Congress can both stimulate and suppress lobbying activity.
Objectives
Authoritarianism has a long history suggesting that it is primarily a phenomenon of the right. However, I argue that this has led to scholars overlooking the potential that, in some contexts, authoritarianism can lead to support for left‐wing candidates. African‐American voters in the United States provide such a context. A key component of right‐wing authoritarianism is that individuals will support whom they believe to be their rightful leader. In the United States, who one believes to be their group's rightful leader is contingent on the race of the voter and the party of the candidate. I hypothesize that as African‐American voters' level of authoritarianism increases, they will be more likely to support the left‐wing Democratic candidate.
Methods
I test this hypothesis with a national sample of voters after the 2012 U.S. presidential election. I estimate multiple logit models predicting the probability of voting for Obama, the key independent variables being respondents' right‐wing authoritarian score, their race, and the interaction of these two variables.
Results
The results present strong support for my hypothesis that an increase in right‐wing authoritarianism increases the probability of African‐American voters choosing Obama.
Conclusion
The results show that the effect of authoritarianism on vote choice is contingent on race/ethnicity. Too often, scholars have overlooked the potential that whom individuals deem to be their established authority is contingent on the political context. These results challenge scholars to provide a more nuanced approach to how authoritarianism influences behavior.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.