Suchergebnisse

Starting from the premise that campaigns ought to have informational benefits for voters this study examines the characteristics of Senate electoral campaigns and their ability to facilitate 'correct voting' as first described by Lau and Redlawsk (1997). Here, the political values and beliefs of voters are measured from the 1990 and 1992 Senate Election Studies to assess how far such beliefs match to their state's Senate candidates. The variation within Senate campaigns allows for a wider range of hypotheses to be tested about the conditions under which voting correctly occurs compared with prior studies that have focused on presidential elections. The findings are important in that they show a lower incidence of correct voting in Senate elections than in presidential races. However, this is moderated by individual knowledge, ideological sophistication, and a higher level of campaign intensity, all of which increase correct voting. The implications lend support to the normative value of campaigns in American politics. Adapted from the source document.

"A Profile of the American Electorate takes an extensive look at the political foundations and behaviors of citizens, yesterday and today. Presenting decades of data on voter choice, voter turnout, and public opinion in a way that is clear and accessible for students of political science, the book uniquely emphasizes the importance of voting, socialization, and reform measures to enhance good citizenship. It explores how Americans become conservative or liberal, why some vote and others stay home, their knowledge of politics, how polarized the public has become, and the complex motivations behind their vote choices"--

ObjectiveThis study examines whether presidential campaigns help voters make informed choices on Election Day, or whether unique campaign contexts can actually hinder quality votes. We explore this question by relating the allocation of resources by presidential campaigns to a measure of correct voting (Lau and Redlawsk, 1997).MethodsWe expect that when campaign messages become overwhelmingly one sided, the number of incorrect votes increases and test this through an assessment of campaign data and responses to the 2000, 2004, and 2008 American National Election Studies.ResultsOur results reveal that lopsided campaign contexts create an opportunity for campaigns to pick up votes that would otherwise go to the opposing candidate.ConclusionThis research underscores the normative value of competitive political campaigns as it relates to voters' exposure to political information. Our findings contribute to debates on campaign strategy, information environments, and the effect of campaigns on voter decision‐making.

This book examines the phenomena of presidential swing states, exploring why some are capable of being decisive in determining who wins the presidency. Students in classes on American Politics and Government, Campaigns and Elections, State Politics, and the Presidency will all be well-served by this volume, as will journalists.