Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T18:32:44.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Data Science for the People

from Empowering and Informing Moderate Voters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Adam Bonica
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Nathaniel Persily
Affiliation:
Stanford Law School
Get access

Summary

Reformers concerned about the rise of partisan polarization often advocate reforming institutions, reducing the influence of political actors believed to have a polarizing effect on politics, or simply adopting a cynical “throw the bums out” mentality. In this chapter I propose that, rather than seek to improve our institutions, we seek to inform and empower voters by combining recent advances in political science and technology. Just as Amazon has made smarter consumers and Netflix has made it easier to discover movies and television shows we like, data and technology can similarly transform the political marketplace. The marvels of the big data revolution that helped campaigns learn about voters and to predict their behavior have been widely lauded following the 2012 elections. However, I believe that the true potential of the big data revolution for politics will be realized by harnessing its power to help voters learn about candidates in an engaging and efficient way.

Much of the unease concerning the rise in partisan polarization relates to the perceived incongruence between the ideological extremity of elected politicians and the relative centrism of the electorate they are sent to represent. Although the mass public has become more polarized in recent decades, it has done so much more slowly than politicians (Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope 2005; Theriault 2008; Abramowitz 2010). This disconnect has fueled concerns about the health of our democracy and that broken electoral and representative institutions have prevented voters from electing the types of representatives they want or deserve. However, others push back, arguing that a flawed electorate, rather than flawed institutions, is to blame.

Scholars have struggled to reconcile the disconnect between the ideological dispositions of voters and those of the politicians elected to represent them. This debate has identified two general lines of explanation, one relating to candidate entry and the other to voter competence.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ahler, Doug J., Citrin, Jack, and Lenz, Gabriel. 2013. “Do Open Primaries Help Moderate Candidates? An Experimental Test on the 2012 California Primary.” Working paper.
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public version 1.0.” Computer file.
Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “A History (and Future) of Congressional Polarization.” Retrieved from http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/04/a-history-and-future-of-congressional-polarization/.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members Voting.” American Political Science Review 96: 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth, McCarty, Nolan, McGhee, Eric, Rogers, Steven, and Shor, Boris. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology,” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 337–351.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul and Stiglitz, Edward. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×