This article asks whether apparent attribute effects in candidate choice reflect unobserved masking (inference about missing information) or genuine lexicographic preferences (respondents treating one attribute as dominant). The authors propose an empirical test that uses conjoint experiments to distinguish between the two explanations and illustrate the approach with data on gender, race, and party; they also report a preregistered replication.
This study evaluates how union sponsorship affected the electoral prospects of British parliamentary candidates throughout the 20th century. A new dataset was compiled covering the universe of union‑sponsored candidates to enable this long‑run analysis.
This article examines voter preferences regarding political representation, specifically analyzing underrepresentation within advanced democracies.
Tunisia’s 2018 municipal elections adopted strict gender quotas that produced near-parity between male and female elected councilors. Yet fewer than 20% of mayors—who are chosen from among elected list-heads—were women. This research investigates why quotas raised descriptive representation on councils but failed to convert into council leadership.
Women face a 'gendered pipeline' barrier to power, but the reasons are complex. We analyzed three candidate pools: lower-level officeholders, newspaper-nominated candidates, and lawyers with political contributions.
This study asks how parties in presidential systems choose vice-presidential running mates and what trade-offs those choices reflect. It introduces a Vice-Presidential Candidate Profile Index (VPCPI) to characterize running-mate selections and uses that index to assess selection strategies in Brazil after redemocratization. The central contribution is a descriptive tool (the VPCPI) and an empirical application that evaluates whether tickets pick successors mainly to win votes, to improve governing capacity, or to do both.
Ethnic minority voters often face biased service from politicians. This study tests whether electoral incentives or candidate selection reduces such bias.
The vote-seat relationship is central to democratic governance, yet the effects of partisan gerrymandering on political parties' long-term health have been understudied. This article examines how districting bias impacts party vitality at multiple levels. We find that when disadvantaged by gerrymandered maps, parties face several negative consequences: candidates are less likely to run for office; those who do run often lack strong qualifications; donors become reluctant contributors; and general voter support declines. These findings demonstrate that excessive partisan advantage in redistricting harms democratic institutions beyond immediate electoral outcomes.
The article examines whether voters prioritize party support when backing candidates during primary elections. Using data from [Dataset Name], it analyzes voting patterns across multiple states and districts, comparing them to general election preferences. The analysis suggests that while parties remain influential, voter motivations differ significantly in primaries versus general elections.
Does electoral fraud strengthen authoritarian regimes? New survey experiment data from post-2016 Russian elections suggest otherwise.
This study investigates how partisan donors influence congressional candidates' ideological positions. Analyzing U.S. House elections from 2002-2010, the findings reveal a significant trend: candidates show greater responsiveness to their donor base than to primary voters or general election supporters.
Comparison focuses on Peruvian municipalities where the previous incumbent was ousted through a recall referendum versus municipalities where a recall referendum failed by a small margin. The goal is to estimate how political accountability mechanisms affect who runs for office when those mechanisms are vulnerable to political capture.
This study investigates the relationship between political information access, candidate selection processes, and representation quality in Nepal.
Elite cohesion is essential to authoritarian stability, yet high-level defections can threaten regimes. Analyzing 4,291 Russian ruling party candidates provides insights into elite integrity under autocracy.
Primary elections in the United States have been understudied despite their influence on candidate selection. Using new data and ideal point estimation, this research examines how primary electorates shape party nominees' ideologies. We analyze district-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study to reveal that Republican primary electorates favor more extreme candidates compared to general election voters. In contrast, Democratic primary electorates show less divergence in ideological preferences when selecting their party's nominee for Congress.