No Balance, No Problem: Evidence of Partisan Voting in the 2021 Georgia U.S. Senate Runoffs

Abstract

Recent work on American presidential elections suggests that voters engage in anticipatory balancing, which occurs when voters split their ticket in order to moderate collective policy outcomes by forcing agreement among institutions controlled by opposing parties. We use the 2021 Georgia U.S. Senate runoffs, which determined whether Democrats would have unified control of the federal government given preceding November victories by President-elect Biden and House Democrats, to evaluate support for anticipatory balancing. Leveraging an original survey of Georgia voters, we find no evidence of balancing within the general electorate and among partisans across differing model specifications. We use qualitative content analysis of voter electoral runoff intentions to support our findings and contextualize the lack of evidence for balancing withan original analysis showing the unprecedented partisan nature of contemporary Senate elections since direct-election began in 1914.

Online engagement with 2020 election misinformation and turnout in the 2021 Georgia runoff election

“…On the one hand, they, at times, endorsed claims of widespread voter fraud, supported a lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election result ( 63 ), and called on Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to resign prior to the runoff election ( 64 ). However, they also, at times, acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory ( 65 )—particularly when arguing that the runoff election represented voters’ last chance to deny the Democratic Party a trifecta in the House, Senate, and presidency ( 2 ).…”

“…Voter-fraud allegations were a central feature of what was arguably the dominant political news story of that period—President Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election result, including efforts to directly pressure election officials in Georgia ( 72 ). Extensive coverage of the 2020 election could have displaced coverage perhaps more beneficial to Republican Senate candidates, including messages about the potential to counterbalance a Democratic presidency ( 2 , 66 ). ††…”

“…Conspiracy theories regarding election theft could have signaled to adherents that their votes would not affect the runoff elections’ outcomes, making them less likely to turn out. They could also have led adherents to perceive that the Republican Senate candidates in Georgia, by campaigning on the fact that their victory was necessary to prevent a Democratic trifecta in the House, Senate, and presidency ( 2 ), declined to demonstrate sufficient commitment to Donald Trump (and, by extension, the conspiratorial claims) and were therefore not worth supporting. However, election conspiracy theories could also encourage participation in subsequent elections by stoking political anger, directing adherents to continue democratic participation as a means of rectifying political opponents’ previous malfeasance.…”