The Common Good and Voter Polarization

J. Matsusaka, Chad Kendall
{"title":"The Common Good and Voter Polarization","authors":"J. Matsusaka, Chad Kendall","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3868589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do voters see democracy entirely as a game of self-interest in which one person’s gain is another’s loss, or do they also view it as a search for the common good, as some democracy theorists have long conjectured? Existing empirical research that assumes entirely private interests cannot answer this question, by design. We develop an empirical model in which voters derive utility from both common-good and private considerations, and show formally how to disentangle the two preference components. We estimate the model on California ballot propositions from 1986 to 2020, and find that 46 to 87 percent of voters place significant weight on the common-good aspects of proposals. Common-good concerns mitigate the effects of voter polarization, which we find substantially increased over out study period - particularly in the last six years.","PeriodicalId":117783,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Models of Political Processes: Rent-Seeking","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Models of Political Processes: Rent-Seeking","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3868589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Do voters see democracy entirely as a game of self-interest in which one person’s gain is another’s loss, or do they also view it as a search for the common good, as some democracy theorists have long conjectured? Existing empirical research that assumes entirely private interests cannot answer this question, by design. We develop an empirical model in which voters derive utility from both common-good and private considerations, and show formally how to disentangle the two preference components. We estimate the model on California ballot propositions from 1986 to 2020, and find that 46 to 87 percent of voters place significant weight on the common-good aspects of proposals. Common-good concerns mitigate the effects of voter polarization, which we find substantially increased over out study period - particularly in the last six years.
共同利益与选民两极分化
选民们是否完全把民主看作是一场利己主义的游戏,一个人的得失就是另一个人的得失?还是像一些民主理论家长期以来猜测的那样,他们也把民主看作是对共同利益的追求?现有的实证研究假设完全是私人利益,并不能回答这个问题。我们开发了一个经验模型,其中选民从公共利益和私人考虑中获得效用,并正式展示了如何区分这两个偏好成分。我们估计了1986年至2020年加州投票提案的模型,发现46%至87%的选民非常重视提案的共同利益方面。共同利益的关注减轻了选民两极分化的影响,我们发现,在我们的研究期间,尤其是在过去六年里,选民两极分化的影响大幅增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信