Credit Where it's Due? Valence Politics, Attributions of Responsibility, and Multi-Level Elections
Credit Where it's Due? Valence Politics, Attributions of Responsibility, and Multi-Level Elections
复制标题
信用到期在哪里？
DOI：
10.1007/s11109-010-9116-y
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Johns R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Johns R
在考虑多层次背景下的选举时，学者们通常假设——与二阶选举理论一致——选民进行选举的方式取决于他们的责任归属，即他们认为选举中的利害关系。这个假设值得怀疑。正式立场并不总是明确的，并且被各方和媒体进一步模糊。此外，许多选民很少关注政治，也没有动力去追究宪法责任。在本文中，我使用安大略省和苏格兰这两个多层次背景下的选举研究数据来探讨选民责任归属的性质和影响。证据表明，当调查要求这样做时，许多选民可以自信且相当准确地将问题分配给不同级别的政府。然而，他们在选举中似乎并没有过多考虑这些归因。几乎没有迹象表明，那些将这些问题视为选举舞台责任的人在决策过程中所考虑的问题更为重要。一个合理的解释是，大多数选民回避了多级选举所施加的认知要求。
When considering elections in multi-level contexts, scholars have typically assumed—in line with second-order election theory—that the way voters approach an election depends on their attributions of responsibility, that is, on what they see as being at stake in that election. This assumption is questionable. The formal position is not always clear, and is further blurred by parties and the media. Moreover, many voters pay little attention to politics and have little incentive to trace constitutional responsibilities. In this paper I use data from election studies in two multi-level contexts, Ontario and Scotland, to explore the nature and impact of voters’ attributions of responsibility. The evidence suggests that, when called upon in surveys to do so, many voters can confidently and fairly accurately assign issues to different levels of government. Yet they do not seem to consider these attributions much at elections. There is very little indication that issues weighed heavier in the decision-making of those who regarded them as the responsibility of that electoral arena. A plausible explanation is that most voters sidestep the cognitive demands imposed by multi-level elections.