Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-fm8r5 Total loading time: 0.453 Render date: 2021-06-24T05:56:46.622Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Distinguishing Occasional Abstention from Routine Indifference in Models of Vote Choice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2015

Abstract

Researchers commonly employ multinomial logit (MNL) models to explain individual-level vote choice while treating “abstention” as the baseline category. Though many view abstainers as a homogeneous group, we argue that these respondents emerge from two distinct sources. Some nonvoters are likely to be “occasional voters” who abstained from a given election owing to temporary factors, such as a distaste for all candidates running in a particular election, poor weather conditions, or other temporary circumstances. On the other hand, many nonvoters are unlikely to vote regardless of the current political climate. This latter population of “routine nonvoters” is consistently disengaged from the political process in a way that is distinct from that of occasional voters. Including both sets of nonvoters within an MNL model can lead to faulty inferences. As a solution, we propose a baseline-inflated MNL estimator that models heterogeneous populations of nonvoters probabilistically, thus accounting for the presence of routine nonvoters within models of vote choice. We demonstrate the utility of this model using replications of existing political behavior research.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Benjamin E. Bagozzi, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware (bagozzib@udel.edu), Address: 347 Smith Hall, 18 Amstel Ave, Newark, DE 19716. Kathleen Marchetti, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Dickinson College (marchetk@dickinson.edu), Address: 12 Denny Hall, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013. Earlier drafts of this paper presented at the 7th Annual St. Louis Area Methods Meeting (SLAMM!) and the APSA 2013 Annual Meeting. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable suggestions and feedback that they received from the editors, reviewers, and replication analysts at Political Science Research and Methods, as well as from Justin Esarey, John Freeman, Jeff Gill, Galin Jones, Luke Keele, Ines Levin, James McCann, Jamie Monogan, Burt Monroe, Jacob Montgomery, Bumba Mukherjee, and Chris Zorn. The authors would also like to thank Kevin Arceneaux, Robin Kolodny, David Campbell, and J. Quin Monson for sharing their replication data. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.42

References

Arceneaux, Kevin, and Kolodny, Robin. 2009. ‘Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):755770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, Benjamin E., and Mukherjee, Bumba. 2012. ‘A Mixture Model for Middle Category Inflation in Ordered Survey Responses’. Political Analysis 20(3):369386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, Benjamin E., , Jr.Hill, Daniel W., Moore, Will H., and Mukherjee, Bumba. 2015. ‘Modeling Two Types of Peace: The Zero-Inflated Ordered Probit (Ziop) Model in Conflict Research’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59:728752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beger, Andreas, DeMeritt, Jacqueline H.R., Hwang, Wonjae, and Moore, Will H.. 2011. ‘The Split Population Logit (Spoplogit): Modeling Measurement Bias in Binary Data’. Working Paper, PolMeth media repository: http://polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/BegDemHwaMoo28Feb11.pdf Google Scholar
Blias, André. 2000. To Vote or Not to Vote: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1990. ‘Surge and Decline, Negative Voting, and the Midterm Loss Phenomenon: A Simultaneous Choice Analysis’. American Journal of Political Science 36:615645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2013. ‘The Anna Karenina Principle in International Relations’. Presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Francisco CA.Google Scholar
Brooks, Robert, Harris, Mark N., and Spencer, Christopher. 2012. ‘Inflated Ordered Outcomes’. Economic Letters 117:683686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Martijn, van Oort, Frank, and Linders, Gert-Jan. 2009. ‘On the Specification of the Gravity Model of Trade: Zeros, Excess Zeros and Zero-Inflated Estimation’. Spatial Economic Analysis 4(2):167190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David E., and Monson, J. Quin. 2008. ‘The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election’. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(3):399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Jay K., and Endersby, James W.. 2004. ‘Multinomial Probit and Multinomial Logit: A Comparison of Choice Models for Voting Research’. Electoral Studies 23(1):107222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. ‘The Effect of a Nonpartisan Get-Out-the-Vote Drive: An Experimental Study of Leafletting’. Journal of Politics 62(3):846857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William H. 1994. ‘Some Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models’. Working Paper No. EC-94-10, Department of Economics, New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 2011. Econometric Analysis 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel B., and Shen, Jing. 2010. ‘Robust Estimation for Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression’. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 37:237252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Mark N., and Zhao, Xueyan. 2007. ‘A Zero-Inflated Ordered Probit Model, with an Application to Modelling Tobacco Consumption’. Journal of Econometrics 141(2):10731099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2005. ‘Campaign Effects and the Dynamics of Turnout Intention in Election 2000’. Journal of Politics 67(1):5068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Correa, Michael A., and Leal, David L.. 2001. ‘Political Participation: Does Religion Matter?’. Political Research Quarterly 54(4):751770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmoe, Nathan P., and Piston, Spencer. 2013. ‘Is Implicit Prejudice Against Blacks Politically Consequential? Evidence From the Amp’. Public Opinion Quarterly 77(1):305322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sydney. 1994. Designing Social Science Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Burden, Barry C.. 1999. ‘The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 US Presidential Election’. American Journal of Political Science 42:233255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, Emmi, Kuuluvainen, Jari, Pouta, Eija, Rekola, Mika, and Li, Chuan-Zhong. 2003. ‘Non-market Benefits of Forest Conservation in Southern Finland’. Environmental Science & Policy 6:195204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Amy H. 2011. ‘Linguistic Effects of Political Institutions’. Journal of Politics 73(1):125139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevitte, Neil, Blias, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nadeau, Richard. 2000. Unsteady State: The I997 Canadian Federal Election. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niven, David. 2004. ‘The Mobilization Solution? Face-To-Face Contact and Voter Turnout in a Municipal Election’. Journal of Politics 66(3):868884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Janine, Barth, Jay, Kropf, Martha, and Jones, E. Terrence. 2008. ‘Mobilizing the Seldom Voter: Campaign Contact and Effects in High Profile Elections’. Political Behavior 30:97113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plane, Dennis L., and Gershtenson, Joseph. 2004. ‘Candidates’ Ideological Locations, Abstention and Turnout in U.S. Midterm Elections’. Political Behavior 26(1):6993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Propper, Carol. 2000. ‘The Demand for Private Health Care in the UK’. Journal of Health Economics I9(6):855876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Mitchell S. 1999. ‘Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two-Candidate and Three-Candidate Elections’. Political Analysis 7:89115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Todd G., and Godel, Robert K.. 1997. ‘Participation Rates, Socioeconomic Class Biases, and Congressional Elections: A Crossvalidation’. American Journal of Political Science 4I(2):683691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, K., and van Ham, Carolien. 2013. ‘The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout’. Electoral Studies 32:344359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staub, Kevin E., and Winkelmann, Rainer. 2012. ‘Consistent Estimation of Zero-Inflated Count Models’. Health Economics 22(6):673686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H.. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Vuong, Quang H. 1989. ‘Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses’. Econometrica 57(2):307333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Xiang, Jun. 2010. ‘Relevance as a Latent Variable in Dyadic Analysis of Conflict’. Journal of Politics 72(2):484498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipp, John F. 1985. ‘Perceived Representatives and Voting: An Assessment of the Impact of “Choices” vs. “Echoes”’. American Political Science Review 79(1):5061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bagozzi and Marchetti supplementary material

Appendix

Download Bagozzi and Marchetti supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 134 KB
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Distinguishing Occasional Abstention from Routine Indifference in Models of Vote Choice*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Distinguishing Occasional Abstention from Routine Indifference in Models of Vote Choice*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Distinguishing Occasional Abstention from Routine Indifference in Models of Vote Choice*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *