Political Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 1025–1046 | Cite as

Does Partisan Self-interest Dictate Support for Election Reform? Experimental Evidence on the Willingness of Citizens to Alter the Costs of Voting for Electoral Gain

  • Daniel R. BiggersEmail author
Original Paper


Elite support for modifying electoral institutions and policies generally depends on whether a proposed change is expected to improve their party’s electoral prospects. Prior studies suggest that the average citizen evaluates potential reforms in a similar manner, but they fail to directly demonstrate that individuals actually consider their partisan self-interest when forming policy preferences. I address this limitation through two survey experiments that manipulate the specific group for whom reforms make voting more or less difficult. The results provide strong causal evidence that individuals update their attitudes as expected in response to that information. Members of both parties consistently express greater support for changes when framed as advancing their party’s electoral prospects than when characterized as benefiting their opponents. The findings have important implications for the constraints faced by political actors in gaming the electoral system in their favor and for understanding the role of self-interest in shaping policy attitudes.


Election reform Partisan self-interest Survey experiment Public opinion 



I thank Greg Huber, Shaun Bowler, Craig Burnett, Tom Carsey, Alan Gerber, the two anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their helpful comments and feedback. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2014 State Politics and Policy Conference. All errors are my own.

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9481_MOESM1_ESM.docx (155 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 154 kb)


  1. Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., Levin, I., & Stewart, C., III. (2011). Voter opinions about election reform: Do they support making voting more convenient? Election Law Journal,10(2), 73–87.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., Levin, I., & Sinclair, J. A. (2012). Making voting easier: Convenience voting in the 2008 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly,65(2), 248–262.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers’ consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banducci, S. A., & Karp, J. A. (1999). Perceptions of fairness and support for proportional representation. Political Behavior,21(3), 217–238.Google Scholar
  5. Barreto, M. A., Nuño, S. A., & Sanchez, G. R. (2007). Voter ID requirements and the disenfranchisements of Latino, Black and Asian voters. In Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Barreto, M. A., Nuño, S. A., & Sanchez, G. R. (2009). The disproportionate impact of voter-ID requirements on the electorate—New evidence from Indiana. Political Science and Politics,42(1), 111–116.Google Scholar
  7. Bawn, K., Cohen, M., Karol, D., Masket, S., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597.Google Scholar
  8. Bentele, K. G., & O’Brien, E. E. (2013). Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspectives on Politics,11(4), 1088–1116.Google Scholar
  9. Berinksy, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis,20(3), 351–368.Google Scholar
  10. Biggers, D. R., & Hanmer, M. J. (2015). Who makes voting convenient? Explaining the adoption of early and no-excuse absentee voting in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly,15(2), 192–210.Google Scholar
  11. Biggers, D. R., & Hanmer, M. J. (2017). Understanding the adoption of voter identification laws in the American states. American Politics Research,45(4), 560–588.Google Scholar
  12. Boix, C. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review,93(3), 609–624.Google Scholar
  13. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2007). Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers, and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science,37(3), 455–476.Google Scholar
  14. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2013). The limits of electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2002). Why might institutions change? Elite support for direct democracy in three nations. Political Research Quarterly,55(4), 731–754.Google Scholar
  16. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2006). Why politicians like electoral institutions: Self-interest, values, or ideology? Journal of Politics,68(2), 434–446.Google Scholar
  17. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fougere, J., Ansolabehere, S., & Persily, N. (2010). Partisanship, public opinion, and redistricting. Election Law Journal,9(4), 325–347.Google Scholar
  21. Hanmer, M. J. (2009). Discount voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Herron, M. C., & Smith, D. A. (2014). Race, party, and the consequences of restricting early voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election. Political Research Quarterly,67(3), 646–665.Google Scholar
  23. Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science,48(1), 62–76.Google Scholar
  24. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hicks, W. D., McKee, S. C., Sellers, M. D., & Smith, D. A. (2015). A principle or a strategy? Voter identification laws and partisan competition in the American states. Political Research Quarterly,68(1), 18–33.Google Scholar
  26. Hood, M. V., III, & Bullock, C. S., III. (2008). Worth a thousand words? An analysis of Georgia’s voter identification statute. American Politics Research,36(4), 555–579.Google Scholar
  27. Karol, D. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Karp, J. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2010). Support for nationalizing presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly,40(4), 771–793.Google Scholar
  29. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review,88(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  32. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science,59(1), 128–145.Google Scholar
  34. McGhee, E. (2014). Measuring partisan bias in single-member district electoral systems. Legislative Studies Quarterly,39(1), 55–85.Google Scholar
  35. Rocha, R. R., & Matsubayashi, T. (2014). The politics of race and voter ID laws in the states: The return of Jim Crow? Political Research Quarterly,67(3), 666–679.Google Scholar
  36. Shepsle, K. A. (2001). A comment on institutional change. Journal of Theoretical Politics,13(3), 321–325.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, D. A., Tolbert, C. J., & Keller, A. M. (2010). Electoral and structural losers and support for a national referendum in the US. Electoral Studies,29(3), 509–520.Google Scholar
  38. Stewart, C., III, Ansolabehere, S., & Persily, N. (2016). Revisiting public opinion on voter identification and voter fraud in an era of increasing partisan polarization. Stanford Law Review,68(6), 1455–1489.Google Scholar
  39. Tolbert, C. J., Smith, D. A., & Green, J. C. (2009). Strategic voting and legislative redistricting reform: District and statewide representational winners and losers. Political Research Quarterly,62(1), 92–109.Google Scholar
  40. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology,35(2), 117–125.Google Scholar
  41. Tyson, A., & Maniam, S. (2016). Behind Trump’s victory: Divisions by race, gender, education. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from
  42. Wenzel, J. P., Bowler, S., & Lanoue, D. J. (2000). Citizen opinion and constitutional choices: The case of the UK. Political Behavior,22(3), 241–265.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, D. C., & Brewer, P. R. (2013). The foundations of public opinion on voter ID laws: Political predispositions, racial resentment, and information effects. Public Opinion Quarterly,77(4), 962–984.Google Scholar
  44. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations