IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i7p1523-1538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Preferences for Comprehensive Electoral Reform in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Coll
  • Caroline J. Tolbert
  • Michael Ritter

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to examine whether Americans have a latent attitude toward comprehensive electoral reform the determinants of this attitude. Methods The article creates and validates an index of election reform attitudes; examines the independent and interactive roles of partisanship, political interest, electoral fortunes, and satisfaction with democracy on these attitudes. Results While a majority of Americans favor comprehensive election reform, this desire is strongest among Democrats, independents, people who feel they regularly lose in elections, and individuals who are dissatisfied with democracy, with no independent effect of political interest. Multivariate results find the effect of partisanship is conditioned by whether the respondent feels they generally win or lose in elections and satisfaction with democracy. Partisanship also interacts with political interest. More interested Democrats (Republicans) are more (less) supportive of comprehensive reform. Independents who are electoral losers or dissatisfied with government strongly favor election reform and resemble Democrats, while independents who feel they regularly win or are more satisfied are more opposed and resemble Republicans. Conclusion Two‐thirds of Americans favor modernizing and updating U.S. election laws, but these attitudes are colored by partisanship, with evidence suggesting both elite messaging and expected electoral advantage as potential influences. Additionally, asymmetric partisan interactive effects are uncovered.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Coll & Caroline J. Tolbert & Michael Ritter, 2022. "Understanding Preferences for Comprehensive Electoral Reform in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1523-1538, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:7:p:1523-1538
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13220
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13220?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Owens, 2021. "Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1349-1360, July.
    2. Paul Gronke & William D. Hicks & Seth C. McKee & Charles Stewart & James Dunham, 2019. "Voter ID Laws: A View from the Public," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(1), pages 215-232, February.
    3. Bowler, Shaun & Donovan, Todd, 2007. "Reasoning About Institutional Change: Winners, Losers and Support for Electoral Reforms," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 455-476, July.
    4. Caughey, Devin & Warshaw, Christopher, 2018. "Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 249-266, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parrish Bergquist & Christopher Warshaw, 2023. "How climate policy commitments influence energy systems and the economies of US states," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Trachtman, Samuel, 2020. "What drives climate policy adoption in the U.S. states?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. André Blais & Jean-François Laslier & François Poinas & Karine Straeten, 2015. "Citizens’ preferences about voting rules: self-interest, ideology, and sincerity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 423-442, September.
    4. Nikolas Schöll & Aina Gallego & Gaël Le Mens, 2021. "Politician-Citizen Interactions and Dynamic Representation: Evidence from Twitter," Working Papers 1238, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Shazia, Farhan, 2024. "Crime and covenants," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Jacob M. Grumbach & Jamila Michener, 2022. "American Federalism, Political Inequality, and Democratic Erosion," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 143-155, January.
    7. Facchini, Giovanni & Hatton, Timothy J. & Steinhardt, Max F., 2024. "Opening Heaven’s Door: Public Opinion and Congressional Votes on the 1965 Immigration Act," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 232-270, March.
    8. Schoenherr, Jessica A. & Black, Ryan C., 2019. "Friends with benefits: Case significance, amicus curiae, and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 43-53.
    9. Richard Burke, 2021. "Nationalization and Its Consequences for State Legislatures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 269-280, January.
    10. Andreas C Goldberg & Lukas Benedikt Hoffmann, 2024. "Peoples’ perspectives on the ‘Future of Europe’ – A comparative study from within and beyond the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 151-172, March.
    11. Daniel J. Galvin, 2021. "Labor’s Legacy: The Construction of Subnational Work Regulation," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(5), pages 1103-1131, October.
    12. Köhler, Ekkehard & Matsusaka, John G. & Wu, Yanhui, 2023. "Street-level responsiveness of city governments in China, Germany, and the United States," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 640-652.
    13. Richard J. McAlexander & Johannes Urpelainen, 2020. "Elections and Policy Responsiveness: Evidence from Environmental Voting in the U.S. Congress," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 39-63, January.
    14. Aina Gallego & Nikolas Schöll & Gaël Le Mens, 2021. "Politician-citizen interactions and dynamic representation: Evidence from Twitter," Economics Working Papers 1769, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    15. Lyon, Melissa Arnold, 2021. "Heroes, villains, or something in between? How “Right to Work” policies affect teachers, students, and education policymaking," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    16. Calderon, Alvaro & Fouka, Vasiliki & Tabellini, Marco, 2021. "Racial Diversity and Racial Policy Preferences: The Great Migration and Civil Rights," IZA Discussion Papers 14488, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. James J. Feigenbaum & Soumyajit Mazumder & Cory B. Smith, 2020. "When Coercive Economies Fail: The Political Economy of the US South After the Boll Weevil," NBER Working Papers 27161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Tabellini, Marco & Calderon, Alvaro & Fouka, Vasiliki, 2021. "Racial Diversity and Racial Policy Preferences: The Great Migration and Civil Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 14318, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Calderon, Alvaro & Fouka, Vasiliki & Tabellini, Marco, 2021. "Racial Diversity, Electoral Preferences, and the Supply of Policy: The Great Migration and Civil Rights," IZA Discussion Papers 14312, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Karatekin, Canan & Marshall Mason, Susan & Latner, Michael & Gresham, Bria & Corcoran, Frederique & Hing, Anna & Barnes, Andrew J., 2023. "Is fair representation good for children? effects of electoral partisan bias in state legislatures on policies affecting children's health and well-being," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:7:p:1523-1538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.