IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v72y1978i01p178-197_15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Test of Downsian Voter Rationality: 1964 Presidential Voting

Author

Listed:
  • Frohlich, Norman
  • Oppenheimer, Joe A.
  • Smith, Jeffrey
  • Young, Oran R.

Abstract

Systematic testing of Downsian voter rationality is accomplished using a computer simulation technique on the 1964 SRC voting survey. The simulation tests both the hypotheses predicting whether an individual will vote and for whom an individual will vote. To evaluate the results of the tests we develop a statistic analogous to Pearson's r. This statistic measures the percentage improvement over a random guess technique. Utilizing this statistic, Downs explains 68.5 percent of the unexplained variance in the voters' choices of party. Three alternative interpretations of the turnout decision are then considered, each premised on a different notion of how the costs of voting are distributed among the voters. Here we use an Engel Curve technique to develop the turnout decision and explain 92 percent of the variance. The importance of the various elements of the Downsian theory are evaluated and, in contrast to some recent conjectures, the probability of making a difference on the outcome of the election is shown to have an effect on the turnout decision. Finally, to determine the viability of the results, the SRC “6 factor” model is developed in an analogous fashion and used to predict both turnout and direction of vote.

Suggested Citation

  • Frohlich, Norman & Oppenheimer, Joe A. & Smith, Jeffrey & Young, Oran R., 1978. "A Test of Downsian Voter Rationality: 1964 Presidential Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 178-197, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:72:y:1978:i:01:p:178-197_15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400154243/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abel François & Olivier Gergaud, 2019. "Is civic duty the solution to the paradox of voting?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 257-283, September.
    2. Thomas Schwartz, 1987. "Your vote counts on account of the way it is counted: An institutional solution to the paradox of not voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 101-121, January.
    3. Gregory Brunk, 1980. "The impact of rational participation models on voting attitudes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 549-564, January.
    4. Fred Thompson, 1982. "Closeness counts in horseshoes and dancing ... and elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 305-316, January.
    5. Palda Filip & Palda Kristian, 1991. "Campaign Spending And Campaign Finance Issues : An Economic View," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2-3), pages 291-314, June.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:72:y:1978:i:01:p:178-197_15. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.