Item! Candidates are buying your vote

Mention the words “vote buying” and modern-day political villains Jack Abramoff and Tony Rezko probably come to mind, or perhaps special interest groups that donate to a politician’s campaign and expect support when relevant bills come to vote. It may shock American sensibilities to learn that, in an economic sense, our votes are bought with every election in the form of campaign promises that are paid later at a cost to the voter in the form of taxes.

While the Tammany Hall era of beer and sandwiches campaigns has passed, campaign promises are a central strategy in securing voters in the center of the electorate.

In a daring new article for the Journal of Political Economy, “Vote Buying: General Elections,” economists Eddie Dekel (Tel Aviv and Northwestern), Matthew O. Jackson (Stanford), and Asher Wolinsky (Northwestern) explore a theoretical voting system where, in addition to the already accepted campaign promises, votes can be bought and sold, free of stigma. Election strategy is often compared to strategic games, and Dekel and his co-authors provide the model for calculating the economics of the various forms of vote buying. In doing so, they shed light on the economics of our approaching general election.

Building on work showing a correlation between the decline of direct vote buying and the rise of government spending on social programs, Dekel and his co-authors look at the mechanics of different vote buying strategies and calculate the economic costs of both systems by imagining a scenario where both systems are allowed without moral weight given to either side. In this model, the politician may either guarantee a vote through an up-front payment or make a campaign promise of a later pay-off, with no guarantee of a later vote.

The authors find that direct vote buying tends to involve only a small outlay of money and a small group of people. On the other hand, “when parties compete only through campaign promises, the total payments received by voters tend to be substantially higher than under up-front vote buying.” The authors also found that “when parties compete only through campaign promises, the voters whose preferences matter are a specific subset …near the median voter,” whereas a simple bought vote requires no commitment after the election and does not consider voter preference at any point.

As we approach a historic general election, it might be the candidate who best understands how to deploy campaign promises to crucial voters in the median of the electorate that wins the White House. Dekel, Jackson, and Wolinsky’s paper provides a fascinating window into the mechanics of election strategy.

Source: University of Chicago

Related stories:

Does the next president have to be tech-savvy?
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama promises to appoint the nation's first chief technology officer if elected.
Polls may underestimate Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent, researchers say
(PhysOrg.com) -- Current polls of the presidential election may be underestimating Barack Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent nationally and possibly larger margins in the Southeast and some strongly Republican states, according to University of Washington researchers.
Obama has huge lead over McCain -- in cyberspace
If the US presidential election was being held in cyberspace, Barack Obama would win in a landslide. The Democratic candidate has raised tens of millions of dollars more than Republican John McCain online and proven much more savvy overall at harnessing the power of the Internet, according to political and Web analysts.
This is your brain on politics
U.S. presidential candidates have been stumping for nearly two years with their every move being analyzed and reported ad nauseum. Logically, voters should be able to tap into lots of information when they make their decisions come November. But it turns out there's a lot more going on when we step behind the curtain to cast our ballot.
4 in 10 voters don't see either Obama or McCain health-care plan as better for them
As part of the ongoing poll series, Debating Health: Election 2008, the Harvard Public Opinion Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Harris Interactive® conducted a new survey focused on how voters think the presidential candidates' health care reform plans would affect them personally – rather than how they think the plans would affect the nation as a whole. The survey found that voters view the candidates' plans differently from this perspective. Four in ten registered voters don't believe one candidate's health care plan would be better for them than the other. (This includes those who think there wouldn't be a difference for them between the plans (27%) and those who don't know if there would be (13%)). More voters think Senator Barack Obama's plan would be better for them than Senator John McCain's plan (33% vs. 27%). This survey was conducted September 17-21, 2008, by telephone among a national cross section of 935 registered voters in the United States.
Google teams with film stars to register US voters
Film stars including Forest Whitaker, Leonardo DiCaprio and Dustin Hoffman joined forces with Google on Wednesday in a campaign to get US citizens to vote in the coming presidential election.
Google offers cash for world-changing ideas
Google is marking its 10th anniversary by offering 10 million dollars to back world changing ideas.
New technologies make campaign more personal, analyst says
(PhysOrg.com) -- A political scientist at Montana State University believes that technological advances have made the political campaign process more personal than any campaign for more than a century.

News discussion:

General Science news