亲自投票还是方便投票?直接成本在解释投票方式偏好中的作用

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
{"title":"亲自投票还是方便投票?直接成本在解释投票方式偏好中的作用","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>High turnout is crucial for political legitimacy. By reducing the direct costs of voting in person, such as queuing and taking time off work, convenience voting modalities are expected to increase turnout. Yet, little is known about the role these costs play in explaining <em>how</em> citizens want to vote. This paper investigates whether perceptions of the direct costs of voting influence individual preferences for in-person compared to convenience forms of balloting such as voting by mail, or absentee voting. Using original cross-sectional data and a preregistered survey experiment encompassing the 2022 US midterm elections, I find that higher direct costs reduce individual preferences for in-person voting. Importantly, this reduction is not compensated by higher preferences for convenience modalities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001094/pdfft?md5=f8ef2c70152d3ef25641aefdb81b96c7&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424001094-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In-person or convenience voting? The role of the direct costs in explaining preferences for voting modalities\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>High turnout is crucial for political legitimacy. By reducing the direct costs of voting in person, such as queuing and taking time off work, convenience voting modalities are expected to increase turnout. Yet, little is known about the role these costs play in explaining <em>how</em> citizens want to vote. This paper investigates whether perceptions of the direct costs of voting influence individual preferences for in-person compared to convenience forms of balloting such as voting by mail, or absentee voting. Using original cross-sectional data and a preregistered survey experiment encompassing the 2022 US midterm elections, I find that higher direct costs reduce individual preferences for in-person voting. Importantly, this reduction is not compensated by higher preferences for convenience modalities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001094/pdfft?md5=f8ef2c70152d3ef25641aefdb81b96c7&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424001094-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001094\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001094","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高投票率对政治合法性至关重要。通过减少亲自投票的直接成本,如排队和请假,便捷投票模式有望提高投票率。然而,人们对这些成本在解释公民如何投票方面所起的作用知之甚少。本文研究了与邮寄投票或缺席投票等便利投票方式相比,对投票直接成本的看法是否会影响个人对亲身投票的偏好。利用原始横截面数据和包含 2022 年美国中期选举的预先登记调查实验,我发现较高的直接成本降低了个人对亲自投票的偏好。重要的是,这种降低并不能通过提高对便利方式的偏好来补偿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In-person or convenience voting? The role of the direct costs in explaining preferences for voting modalities

High turnout is crucial for political legitimacy. By reducing the direct costs of voting in person, such as queuing and taking time off work, convenience voting modalities are expected to increase turnout. Yet, little is known about the role these costs play in explaining how citizens want to vote. This paper investigates whether perceptions of the direct costs of voting influence individual preferences for in-person compared to convenience forms of balloting such as voting by mail, or absentee voting. Using original cross-sectional data and a preregistered survey experiment encompassing the 2022 US midterm elections, I find that higher direct costs reduce individual preferences for in-person voting. Importantly, this reduction is not compensated by higher preferences for convenience modalities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
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