Last, a group of scholars focus on the relationship of partisan polarization and political participation, in particular voter turnout. Unfortunately, only a few studies empirically and rigorously test the polarization’s effect on voter turnout as well as the mass political behavior as a whole. Some articles deal with the topic and present results of analysis, but most of them rely solely on descriptive statistics. Abramowitz and Saunders (2008) conclude that ideological polarization in the elites leads to the public’s greater participation in elections, but the method they use to derive their conclusion is simple comparison of turnout rates between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. They simply assume the higher turnout in 2004 is
…show more content…
Rogowski (2014) adopts survey data collected by Project Vote Smart that administer surveys to candidates for president, House and Senate, governor, and state legislatures. Candidates are asked about their political position on various issues, and thus their answers are deemed as indicators of two parties’ ideological platforms. In the analysis of House and Senate elections, Rogowski finds the negative effect of candidates’ ideological gap on voter turnout in a given district. The larger the ideological gap between candidates, the lower the voter turnout, according to his analysis. His conclusion is different from Hetherington and Abramowitz’s arguments introduced above. As Rogowski controls confounding factors, he is at a better position to supporting his argument. However, the candidates’ ideological divergence in his study cannot ignore the endogenous relationship between ideological divergence and turnout in a given district. That is, in an electoral area where many voters generally abstain from voting, candidates could make efforts to stimulate turnout by intentionally showing clear differences of their ideological positions so that they can garner support from their target electorate. This potential endogeneity problem makes it unclear whether ideological polarization actually negatively influences …show more content…
This line of argument notices the similarity between negative campaign and party polarization, both of which highlight distinct policy platforms among candidates or parties. However, the research on negative campaigning has also produced conflicting results with respect to its effect on political polarization. On one hand, Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) suggest that negative campaigning disengages the electorate, particularly independents, by keeping them from having a positive view on politics . Following their research, other studies have presented similar views on the effects of negative campaigning on voter participation (e.g., Brooks 2000). On the other hand, many posit that negative campaign actually boost voter turnout, even among those who are dismayed by politics. Wattenberg and Brians (1999) find affluent information about candidates’ ideological or issue positions in negative advertising enhances better acquirement of political knowledge and in turn boosts higher voter
Rogowski (2014) adopts survey data collected by Project Vote Smart that administer surveys to candidates for president, House and Senate, governor, and state legislatures. Candidates are asked about their political position on various issues, and thus their answers are deemed as indicators of two parties’ ideological platforms. In the analysis of House and Senate elections, Rogowski finds the negative effect of candidates’ ideological gap on voter turnout in a given district. The larger the ideological gap between candidates, the lower the voter turnout, according to his analysis. His conclusion is different from Hetherington and Abramowitz’s arguments introduced above. As Rogowski controls confounding factors, he is at a better position to supporting his argument. However, the candidates’ ideological divergence in his study cannot ignore the endogenous relationship between ideological divergence and turnout in a given district. That is, in an electoral area where many voters generally abstain from voting, candidates could make efforts to stimulate turnout by intentionally showing clear differences of their ideological positions so that they can garner support from their target electorate. This potential endogeneity problem makes it unclear whether ideological polarization actually negatively influences …show more content…
This line of argument notices the similarity between negative campaign and party polarization, both of which highlight distinct policy platforms among candidates or parties. However, the research on negative campaigning has also produced conflicting results with respect to its effect on political polarization. On one hand, Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) suggest that negative campaigning disengages the electorate, particularly independents, by keeping them from having a positive view on politics . Following their research, other studies have presented similar views on the effects of negative campaigning on voter participation (e.g., Brooks 2000). On the other hand, many posit that negative campaign actually boost voter turnout, even among those who are dismayed by politics. Wattenberg and Brians (1999) find affluent information about candidates’ ideological or issue positions in negative advertising enhances better acquirement of political knowledge and in turn boosts higher voter