Suchergebnisse

We analyze a psychologically-based model of voter turnout in an election with common value and uncertainty. Our model yields distinctive comparative statics results. First, an increase in the proportion of informed citizens may cause the winning margin for the right candidate to either rise or fall. In addition such increase can have a non-monotonic effect on turnout of uninformed citizens. Second, as the prior becomes more favourable towards the ex ante favoured candidate, turnouts of informed and uninformed voters both change in a non-monotonic way. Furthermore, total turnout can be positively or negatively correlated with winning margins.

"In this paper we address the following question: To what extent is the hypothesis that voters vote sincerely testable or falsifiable? We show that using data only on how individuals vote in a single election, the hypothesis that voters vote sincerely is irrefutable, regardless of the number of candidates competing in the election. On the other hand, using data on how the same individuals vote in multiple elections, the hypothesis that voters vote sincerely is potentially falsifiable, and we provide general conditions under which the hypothesis can be tested. We then consider an application of our theoretical framework and assess whether the behavior of voters is consistent with sincere voting in U.S. national elections in the post-war period. We find that by and large sincere voting can explain virtually all of the individual-level observations on voting behavior in presidential and congressional U.S. elections in the data"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

Is increasing political competition good for voters? We study this question in the political career concerns framework. Our results show that the relationship between political competition, viewed as the cost of challenging incumbent politicians, and the politicians' incentive to behave in the voters' interest is undetermined. The same holds for the relationship between political competition and voter welfare, where selection of politicians into office also matters. In particular, voter welfare need not be maximized when challenging incumbent politicians is costless. So, unlike in economy markets, where increased competition is beneficial, in political markets increased competition can have adverse effects. We tie our results to a contractual incompleteness that is typical of political markets, namely, that the set of instruments available to discipline politicians' behavior is limited.

We analyze a psychologically-based model of voter turnout in an election with common value and uncertainty. Our model yields distinctive comparative statics results. First, an increase in the proportion of informed citizens may cause the winning margin for the right candidate to either rise or fall. In addition such increase can have a non-monotonic effect on turnout of uninformed citizens. Second, as the prior becomes more favourable towards the ex ante favoured candidate, turnouts of informed and uninformed voters both change in a non-monotonic way. Furthermore, total turnout can be positively or negatively correlated with winning margins.

AbstractWe experimentally study the interaction between a persuader and a decision‐maker. The former would like to persuade the latter to approve a project by providing evidence on the project's value. He may choose a selective disclosure strategy on the basis of his private information. Our experimental design contrasts situations where the persuader observes private information or not and where the decision‐maker interacts with a human or robot persuader. The experimental results confirm the theoretical prediction that the human persuader manipulates the production of evidence. Although the decision‐maker does not adequately take into account such manipulation, the comparative static analysis across treatments is mostly consistent with theoretical predictions with a rational decision‐maker. Our findings on the welfare effect of the persuader's manipulation on the decision‐maker are consistent with theory. In particular, the decision‐maker may benefit from such manipulation. However, the welfare effect on the persuader is not always consistent with theory, in that there are instances in which the persuader is not hurt by manipulation even though theory predicts that he is.