Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:39:43.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voting through the Looking Glass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert E. Goodin
Robert E. Goodin*
Affiliation:
University of Essex and Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political candidates embody possibilities as well as preferences. To some extent, their possibilities vary systematically and inversely with their preferences. Political systems often have built-in “stops” preventing left-wing candidates from doing things too far to the left of their declared positions and vice versa. The preferences of right-wing candidates make them unlikely to want to pursue policies on the far left, but at least the opportunity to do so is available to them in a way that may be denied to left-wingers themselves. Taking differential possibilities into account, it might prove instrumentaily rational to vote perversely for the right-wing candidate if you really want left-wing results and vice versa. This article sketches conditions under which that proposition will hold true, shows those conditions are empirically plausible, and suggests that politicians themselves are alive to these possibilities. This awareness should make us much more cautious in reading any policy-specific mandates into electoral outcomes. It may even make us doubt the model of instrumental rationality itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 420 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

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

Aldrich, J. H., Niemi, R. C., Rabinowitz, G., & Rohde, D. W.The measurement of public opinion about public policy: A report on some new issue question formats. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26, 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J.Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Chicago: Markham. 1971.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R.Schema theory. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 1248–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benn, S. I.The problematic rationality of political participation. In Laslett, P. & Fishkin, J. (Eds.), Philosophy, politics and society (5th series). Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.Google Scholar
Blalock, H. M.Social statistics. New York: McGrawHill, 1960.Google Scholar
Boswell, J.Life of Johnson. (Chapman, R. W., Ed.) London: Oxford University Press, 1970. (originally published. 1799.)Google Scholar
Downs, A.An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper, 1957.Google Scholar
Elster, J.Freedom and power: A conceptual comparison. Mimeographed, Institute of History, University of Oslo, 1979.Google Scholar
Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. J.A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 483–493.Google Scholar
Feiffer, J.Feiffer. The Washington Post, 01 25, 1982, p. D5.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E.Laundering preferences. In Elster, J. & Hyllund, A. (Eds.), Foundations of social choice theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E., & Roberts, K. W. S.The ethical voter. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 926–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D.An enquiry concerning human understanding. London: T. Cadell, 1977 ed.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M.Elections aren't won by ‘new ideas.’The Washington Post, 11 29, 1981, p. C3.Google Scholar
Kelly, J.Thinking about the unthinkable. Time, 03 29, 1982, pp. 10–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewis, A.A silent generation wakes up. The New York Times, 11 12, 1961, p. 31.Google Scholar
Marx, K.Eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In Complete works (Vol. 11), pp. 99–197. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1979. (originally published, 1852).Google Scholar
Miller, W. E., & Miller, A. H.The CPS 1976 American national election study. Ann Arbor, Mich.: ICPSR, 1977.Google Scholar
Miller, W. E., Miller, A. H., Brody, R., Dennis, J.Kovenock, D., & Shanks, M.The CPS 1972 American national election study (Rev. ed.) Ann Arbor, Mich.: ICPR, 1975.Google Scholar
Miller, W. E., & the National Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. The American national election study, 1980 (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: ICPSR, 1982.Google Scholar
Page, B. I.The theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 1976, 70, 742–752.Google Scholar
Page, B. I.Choices and echoes in presidential elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Peters, C.Chicago reds and Reagan's missed chance. The Washington Post, 10 25, 1981, p. C2.Google Scholar
Safire, W.Safire's political dictionary. New York: Random House, 1978.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M.Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 670–684.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A.The strategy of ambiguity: uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review, 1972, 66, 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, K.We're still in the dark about the liberals. Sydney Morning Herald, 11. 6, 1982, p. 38.Google Scholar
Williams, B.Politics and moral character. In Hampshire, S. (Ed.), Public and private morality. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Zeckhauser, R. J.Majority rule with lotteries on alternatives. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1969, 83, 696–703.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.