Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 77–98 | Cite as

Pre-election polling and third party candidates

Original Paper

Abstract

I analyze voters’ incentives in responding to pre-election polls with a third party candidate. Third party supporters normally have an incentive to vote strategically in the election by voting for one of the major candidates. But these voters would vote third party if the third party candidate is doing surprisingly well in the polls. Because voters are more likely to vote third party if the third party candidate is doing well in polls, voters who like the third party candidate best have an incentive to claim they will vote third party in the polls so that more voters will ultimately vote third party in the election. The differing incentives faced during polls and elections accounts for why third party candidates do better in polls than in elections.

References

  1. Atkeson LR (1999) “Sure, I voted for the winner!” Overreport of the primary vote for the party nominee in the National Election Studies. Political Behav 21:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bensel RF, Sanders ME (1979) The effect of electoral rules on voting behavior: the Electoral College and shift voting. Public Choice 34:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt D, Duggan J, Squintani F (2009) Private polling in elections and voter welfare. J Econ Theory 144:2021–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown CE (1982) A false consensus bias in 1980 presidential primaries. J Soc Psychol 118:137–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burden BC (2005) Minor parties and strategic voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. Elect Stud 24:603–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke J, Taylor CR (2008) What’s in a poll? Incentives for truthful reporting in pre-election opinion surveys. Public Choice 137:221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cukierman A (1991) Asymmetric information and the electoral momentum of public opinion polls. Public Choice 70:181–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawes RM (1990) The potential nonfalsity of the false consensus bias. In: Hogarth RM (ed) Insights in decision making: a tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 97–110Google Scholar
  9. de Bock H (1976) Influence of in-state election poll results on candidate preference in 1972. J Quart 53:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delli Carpini MX (1984) Scooping the voters? The consequence of the networks’ early call of the 1980 presidential race. J Politics 46:866–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duverger M (1954) Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekmekci M (2009) Manipulation through political endorsements. J Econ Theory 144:1227–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fey M (1997) Stability and coordination in Duverger’s law: a formal model of preelection polls and strategic voting. Am Political Sci Rev 91:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler FJ (1984) Survey research methods. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallup GH (1972) The Gallup poll: public opinion 1935–1971. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Goeree JK, Großer J (2007) Welfare reducing polls. Econ Theory 31:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groves RM (1989) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hochstim JR (1967) A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. J Am Stat Assoc 62:976–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hummel P (2011a) Information aggregation in multicandidate elections under plurality rule and runoff voting. Math Soc Sci 62:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hummel P (2011b) Pre-election polling and sequential elections. J Theor Politics 23:463–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hummel P (2012) Sequential voting in large elections with multiple candidates. J Public Econ 96:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston R, Blais A, Brady HE, Crête J (1992) Letting the people decide: dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Koestner R, Losier GF, Worren NM, Baker L, Vallerand RJ (1995) False consensus effects for the 1992 Canadian referendum. Can J Behav Sci 27:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavrakas PJ, Holley JK, Miller PV (1991) Public reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidential election campaign. In: Lavrakas PJ, Holley JK (eds) Polling and presidential election coverage. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp 151–183Google Scholar
  25. Locander W, Sudman S, Bradburn N (1976) An investigation of interview method, threat, and response distortion. J Am Stat Assoc 71:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martinelli C (2002) Simple plurality versus plurality runoff with privately informed voters. Soc Choice Welf 19:901–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKelvey RD, Ordeshook PC (1985) Elections with limited information: a fulfilled expectations model using con- temporaneous poll and endorsement data as information sources. J Econ Theory 36:55–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meirowitz A (2005) Polling games and information revelation in the Downsian framework. Games Econ Behav 51:464–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan J, Stocken PC (2008) Information aggregation in polls. Am Econ Rev 98:864–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morwitz VG, Pluzinski C (1996) Do polls reflect opinions or do opinions reflect polls? The impact of political polling on voters’ expectations, preferences, and behavior. J Cons Res 23:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myatt DP (2007) On the theory of strategic voting. Rev Econ Stud 74:255–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Myerson RB, Weber RJ (1993) A theory of voting equilibria. Am Polit Sci Rev 87:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Neill JC (2007) Choosing a runoff election threshold. Public Choice 131:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palfrey TR (1989) A mathematical proof of Duverger’s law. In: Ordeshook PC (ed) Models of strategic choice in politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 69–91Google Scholar
  35. Rosenstone SJ, Behr RL, Lazarus EH (1996) Third parties in America: citizen response to major party failure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross L, Greene D, House P (1977) The false consensus effect: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 13:279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sudman S (1986) Do exit polls influence voting behavior? Public Opin Quart 50:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Google Inc.Mountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations