IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00803024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election

Author

Listed:
  • Antoinette Baujard

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Frédéric Gavrel

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Herrade Igersheim

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jean-François Laslier

    (PREG-CRG - Pole de recherche en économie et gestion - X - École polytechnique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Isabelle Lebon

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Under evaluative voting, the voter freely grades each candidate on a numerical scale, with the winning candidate being determined by the sum of the grades they receive. This paper compares evaluative voting with the two-round system, reporting on an experiment which used various evaluation scales, conducted during the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. Invitations to participate in the study were extended to around 5,000 voters in three cities, and the experiment attracted 2,340 participants. Basing our argument on the ranks, relative scores, and grade profiles of candidates, we show that the two-round system favors "exclusive" candidates, that is candidates who elicit strong feelings, while evaluative rules favor "inclusive" candidates, that is candidates who attract the support of a large span of the electorate. These differences are explained by two complementary reasons: the opportunity for the voter to support several candidates under evaluative voting rules, and the specific pattern of strategic voting under the official, two-round voting rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Post-Print hal-00803024, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00803024
    DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.11.003
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00803024v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00803024v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.11.003?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-François Laslier, 2011. "Lessons from In Situ Experiments during French Elections," Studies in Public Choice, in: Bernard Dolez & Bernard Grofman & Annie Laurent (ed.), In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform, chapter 0, pages 91-104, Springer.
    2. Etienne Farvaque & Hubert Jayet & Lionel Ragot, 2011. "French Presidential Election: A Field Experiment on the Single Transferable Vote," Studies in Public Choice, in: Bernard Dolez & Bernard Grofman & Annie Laurent (ed.), In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform, chapter 0, pages 55-68, Springer.
    3. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    4. Steven J. Brams & Peter C. Fishburn, 2010. "Going from Theory to Practice: The Mixed Success of Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 19-37, Springer.
    5. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2011. "A Framed-field experiment on Approval voting and Evaluation voting," Post-Print halshs-00564256, HAL.
    6. Karine Van der Straeten & Jean-François Laslier & Nicolas Sauger & André Blais, 2010. "Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 435-472, September.
    7. Dellis, Arnaud, 2009. "Would letting people vote for multiple candidates yield policy moderation?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 772-801, March.
    8. Claude Hillinger, 2005. "The Case for Utilitarian Voting," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 23, pages 295-321.
    9. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Thomas Senne, 2011. "The Political Supply in the 2007 French Presidential Elections: An Analysis Based on Experimental Data," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 101-102, pages 149-186.
    10. Forsythe, Robert & Rietz, Thomas & Myerson, Roger & Weber, Robert, 1996. "An Experimental Study of Voting Rules and Polls in Three-Candidate Elections," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 355-383.
    11. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2013. "Vote par approbation, vote par note. Une expérimentation lors de l'élection présidentielle du 22 avril 2012," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 64(2), pages 345-356.
    12. Hillinger, Claude, 2004. "Voting and the Cardinal Aggregation of Judgments," Discussion Papers in Economics 353, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    13. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2007. "Expérimentation du vote par note et du vote par approbation lors de l'élection présidentielle française du 22 avril 2007," Post-Print halshs-00337290, HAL.
    14. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Introduction to the Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 1-12, Springer.
    15. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2011. "Reconstructing preferences in a voting context," Post-Print halshs-00601279, HAL.
    16. Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "A general scoring rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 193-196.
    17. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2013. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Working Papers hal-00803024, HAL.
    18. repec:adr:anecst:y:2011:i:101-102:p:08 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Hillinger, Claude, 2004. "On the Possibility of Democracy and Rational Collective Choice," Discussion Papers in Economics 429, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    20. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2007. "Expérimentation du vote par note et du vote par approbation lors des élections présidentielles françaises du 22 avril 2007. Premiers résultats," Post-Print halshs-00294481, HAL.
    21. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2010. "Framed Field Experiments on Approval Voting: Lessons from the 2002 and 2007 French Presidential Elections," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 357-395, Springer.
    22. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lachat, Romain & Laslier, Jean-François, 2024. "Alternatives to plurality rule for single-winner elections: When do they make a difference?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Baujard, Antoinette & Gavrel, Frédéric & Igersheim, Herrade & Laslier, Jean-François & Lebon, Isabelle, 2018. "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 14-28.
    3. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    4. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    5. Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Voting and expressing dissatisfaction: an experiment during the 2017 French Presidential election," IKERLANAK 25736, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    6. Bol, Damien & Blais, André & Coulombe, Maxime & Laslier, Jean-François & Pilet, Jean-Benoit, 2023. "Choosing an electoral rule: Values and self-interest in the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    7. Darmann, Andreas & Grundner, Julia & Klamler, Christian, 2019. "Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 345-353.
    8. Ngoie, Ruffin-Benoît M. & Savadogo, Zoïnabo & Ulungu, Berthold E.-L., 2014. "Median and average as tools for measuring, electing and ranking: new prospects," MPRA Paper 64731, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Sep 2014.
    9. Herrade Igersheim & François Durand & Aaron Hamlin & Jean-François Laslier, 2018. "Comparing Voting Methods : 2016 US Presidential Election," Working Papers halshs-01972097, HAL.
    10. Tanya Gibbs & Henry W. Chappell, Jr., 2021. "Elections with Multiple Positive and Negative Votes," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 37-47, December.
    11. Ngoie, Ruffin-Benoît M. & Savadogo, Zoïnabo & Ulungu, Berthold E.-L., 2014. "New prospects in social choice theory: median and average as tools for measuring, electing and ranking," MPRA Paper 64155, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Dec 2014.
    12. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Isabelle Lebon, 2020. "Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting," Working Papers halshs-02926780, HAL.
    13. Aaron Hamlin & Whitney Hua, 2023. "The case for approval voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 335-345, September.
    14. Granić, Đura-Georg, 2017. "The problem of the divided majority: Preference aggregation under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 21-38.
    15. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim & Isabelle Lebon, 2021. "Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 803-834, May.
    16. Igersheim, Herrade & Durand, François & Hamlin, Aaron & Laslier, Jean-François, 2022. "Comparing voting methods: 2016 US presidential election," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    18. Herrade Igersheim & François Durand & Aaron Hamlin & Jean-François Laslier, 2018. "Comparing Voting Methods : 2016 US Presidential Election," PSE Working Papers halshs-01972097, HAL.
    19. Dodge Cahan & Arkadii Slinko, 2018. "Electoral competition under best-worst voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 259-279, August.
    20. Salvatore Barbaro, 2024. "Electoral Methods and Political Polarization," Working Papers 2411, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    21. Antonin Macé, 2015. "Voting with Evaluations: When Should We Sum? What Should We Sum?," AMSE Working Papers 1544, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 29 Oct 2015.
    22. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Election outcomes under different ways to announce preferences: an analysis of the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 201-216, October.

    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. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's favored by evaluative voting? An experiment conducted during the 2012 French presidential election," Working Papers halshs-01090234, HAL.
    2. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2013. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Working Papers hal-00803024, HAL.
    3. José Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2014. "Dis&approval voting: a characterization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Igersheim, Herrade & Durand, François & Hamlin, Aaron & Laslier, Jean-François, 2022. "Comparing voting methods: 2016 US presidential election," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    6. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    7. Baujard, Antoinette & Gavrel, Frédéric & Igersheim, Herrade & Laslier, Jean-François & Lebon, Isabelle, 2018. "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 14-28.
    8. Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Voting and expressing dissatisfaction: an experiment during the 2017 French Presidential election," IKERLANAK 25736, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    9. Abdelhalim El Ouafdi & Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2020. "On the Condorcet efficiency of evaluative voting (and other voting rules) with trichotomous preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 227-241, June.
    10. Herrade Igersheim & François Durand & Aaron Hamlin & Jean-François Laslier, 2018. "Comparing Voting Methods : 2016 US Presidential Election," PSE Working Papers halshs-01972097, HAL.
    11. Herrade Igersheim & Antoinette Baujard & Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," Working Papers halshs-01402275, HAL.
    12. Herrade Igersheim & François Durand & Aaron Hamlin & Jean-François Laslier, 2018. "Comparing Voting Methods : 2016 US Presidential Election," Working Papers halshs-01972097, HAL.
    13. Antonin Macé, 2015. "Voting with Evaluations: When Should We Sum? What Should We Sum?," AMSE Working Papers 1544, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 29 Oct 2015.
    14. Steven Brams & Richard Potthoff, 2015. "The paradox of grading systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 193-210, December.
    15. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2016. "Multiple votes, multiple candidacies and polarization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.
    16. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    17. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & Laruelle, Annick, 2012. "To appove or not to approve: this is not the only question," IKERLANAK http://www-fae1-eao1-ehu-, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    18. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    19. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    20. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 535-555, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Voting; In Situ Experiment; Evaluative Voting; Approval Voting; Two-round system;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:hal:journl:hal-00803024. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.