Many political scientists believe that partisanship is an arbitrary psychological attachment that exerts a drug-like effect on voters’ decisions. An implication is that voters don’t care much about policy or government performance, and instead, elections are just a roll call of intoxicated partisans. I review and reassess the evidence for this view, concluding that there is no compelling evidence to support it. For many empirical tests, partisan intoxication and policy voting are observationally equivalent. Rare opportunities to partially distinguish between these possibilities like the southern realignment suggest that policy voting is more prevalent. When I conduct new tests utilizing survey experiments about hypothetical candidates, the weight of the evidence favors policy voting.
Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?
I thank Scott Ashworth, Chris Berry, Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, John Bullock, Josh Clinton, Jamie Druckman, Ryan Enos, Alex Fouirnaies, Gabriele Gratton, Justin Grimmer, Andy Hall, Eitan Hersh, Seth Hill, Will Howell, Greg Huber, Michele Margolis, Scott Matthews, Pablo Montagnes, Eric Oliver, Guarav Sood, Lynn Vavreck, Chris Wlezien, Adam Zelizer, and seminar participants at Chicago, Emory, and Northwestern for helpful discussion, and I thank Jens Hainmueller, Dan Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto for comments and for sharing data. I am especially grateful to Steven Rogers who has written a thoughtful response and who also helped me to catch and fix a mistake in my analysis of the survey experimental data.
Fowler A (2020), "Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 15 No. 2 pp. 141–179, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018027a
Download citation file:
