Retrospective Voting Last time: Voting correctly Today: Retrospective voting, or Do Campaigns Matter?

Voting “correctly” How often do voters make the “right” choice vis-à- vis their own self interest? conventional argument: well-informed voters can get it right; relatively uninformed voters cast random or habitual votes (unrelated to “objective” conditions Lau and Redlawsk: estimate ~75 pct of votes in prez elections are “correct” –experiment involves post-treatment exit interview in which “full information” is revealed to the participant; few change their minds –Why?

Proximity voting? spatial theory of elections: Vote for the closest candidate in the conceptual space –if the space is one-dimensional and both candidates are perceived to the left (right) of the voter, choice is pretty easy; if most voters lie “in between” the candidates, then choice is cognitively harder –candidate goal is to maximize share of vote; usual conclusion is centripetal incentives vis-à-vis the distribution of voter preferences; hence most voters will be to one side or the other of both candidates; few voters will learn enough to switch votes mobilization models of election –both turnout and vote choice are in question for voters; –preference intensity matters –campaigns are about activating voters’ preferences, not about changing minds

Issue voting? voters lack complete information about candidates’ attributes. How do they choose? –issues: candidates can differentiate on issue platforms. Do voters perceive differences in message? Do they care? –party ID: voters’ self-identified party ID strongly predicts self-reported vote choice. What is party ID? –campaigns: can candidates manipulate their images?

Retrospective voting Candidates face a credibility problem –collective principal or multiple principals? –election to fixed term –hard to contract with voters to follow through on promises –voters have incentive to forecast future behavior based on past record what past behavior do voters know, recall, factor in? Voters have incentives to ignore/discount campaign rhetoric

More retrospection Kiewiet and Rivers: the thesis of the retrospective voting literature is that vote choice is driven by evaluations of outcomes and leads to pro/con assessments of incumbents. –what outcomes matter? –what dynamics relate past outcomes to present choices? –who or what is the “incumbent”? Implication: campaigns and candidates may be second-order considerations at best in vote choices