The undecided voters and the economy: Campaign heterogeneity in the 2005 British general election

Kosmidis, Spyros; Xezonakis, Georgios

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.015

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Late deciders differed from early deciders in these same ways, but in addition, they were also less supportive of each candidate, more likely to be White and less politically informed. Because of the shifting nature of some presidential campaigns, there occasionally is a relationship between the timing of the voting decision and the candidate chosen (Abramson et al, 1995;Stein, 1998;Campbell, 1999;Brox and Giammo, 2009;Kosmidis and Xezonakis, 2010). However, our main concern is with the effect of time of decision on the error variance.…”

Section: The Timing Of Voter Decisions In Presidential Electionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Substantively, we are not primarily concerned with analyzing how the mean of the distribution of the vote choice changes over the course of the campaign, i.e. how the timing of the vote decision affects which candidate one chooses, although this question has been addressed (e.g., Abramson et al, 1995;Stein, 1998;Campbell, 1999;Brox and Giammo, 2009;Kosmidis and Xezonakis, 2010). Rather, we are interested in the effect of the time of decision on the error variance in the vote decision.…”

Section: The Heteroskedastic Probit Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent scholarship suggests that campaign competitiveness (Nir and Druckman, 2008), counterattitudinal advertising (Matthes, 2012), candidate sex (Fulton and Ondercin, 2012), voter sex (Kenski, 2007), and voter ambivalence (Lavine, 2001;Lavine et al, 2012) affect when people decide for whom they will vote. Examination of the electoral consequences of the timing of the vote decision is still sparse (e.g., Kosmidis and Xezonakis, 2010;Lavine et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Timing Of Voter Decisions In Presidential Electionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: The Heteroskedastic Probit Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The role of cognitive costs in individuals' likelihood of expressing an opinion is the most recurring factor mentioned in the literature (i.e. Krosnick et al 2002;Kosmidis and Xezonakis 2010). Yet it is also important to take into consideration the second type of costs: the social ones.…”

Section: A C C E P T E D Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gopoian and Hadjiharalambous (1994) find that late deciders in the US are less predictable than decided voters and that they are also less influenced by the conventional factors that traditionally influence vote choice. Finally, Lavine (2001) and Kosmidis and Xezonakis (2010) find that the determinants of vote choice of decided and undecided voters significantly differ: while the former group are more likely to be affected by the candidate's personal traits, the latter take the economy more into consideration. 4 See for instance, Chaffe and Choe (1980) for the 1976 US presidential elections, Kosmidis and Xezonakis (2010) for the 2005 UK general election, Barisione (2001) for the French and Italian case in the 1990s, Authors (forthcoming 2013) for Spain (1986( -2011( ), Lisi (2010 for the Greek and Portuguese cases in the 2000s and Fournier et al (2004) for Canada.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the political context in voting indecision

Orriols¹,

Martínez²

2014

Electoral Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Accepted Manuscript M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT HighlightsWe examine how context affects voters cognitive and social costs of declaring their vote intentionTo study it we pool all pre-electoral surveys in Spain since 1980 (135 context-level observations)Our results show that the number of parties and the electoral competitiveness increase voting indecisionResults also show that government s reputation influence indecision among incumbent partisans *Highlights (for review) M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The role of the political context in voting indecisionA substantive portion of the electorate declares in pre-electoral surveys that they are undecided.However, little has been done in trying to understand who these voters are and how they finally decide their vote. In this article, we try to advance the literature by disentangling the circumstances under which voters are more likely to be undecided. While the traditional approach to the study of electoral indecision has been to characterize which individual traits make voters more likely to be undecided, this article provides consistent evidence showing that key elements of the political context may also affect electoral indecision. Using long-term harmonized data from Spanish pre-electoral surveys over thirty years, we find that voting indecision is influenced by two different types of contextual factors. First, there are some political contexts that reduce voters' cognitive costs when deciding their vote i.e. the level of electoral competitiveness and the number of par...

show abstract