Voters’ Response to Candidate Ambiguity in U.S. House Elections

Abstract

There is a sizable literature on the causes and effects of candidate positioning in elections. An implication of this research is that candidates present clear issue positions to the electorate and citizens then make voting decisions based on this information. However, if candidates are ambiguous in the positions they take, this may impair voters’ decision-making and prompt voters to punish them for inconsistency. Although there is a growing literature on the effects of candidate and party ambiguity, consensus on the implications of ambiguity for candidates and voters is yet to be achieved. Using data from the 2010 House elections, we find that candidate ambiguity undermines voters’ ability to vote consistent with the spatial logic just as Downs speculated. We also find, in contrast to Downs, that voters punish rather than reward candidate ambiguity. We suggest that a possible mechanism is in voters’ valence ratings of candidates.

Rationality of Irrationality

“…The moderate positive correlation between the two measurements of position blurring implies that although a political party's presenting contradictory statements on the same issue in its manifesto pertains to its blurring party position, the former does not fully explain the latter. There are other behaviors of political parties that make their policy position ambiguous, and the presence of contradictory manifesto statements is only one of them (Cahill and Stone 2018).…”

“…Studies sometimes use the term "position ambiguity" in slightly different ways. While Somer-Topcu (2015) uses it to describe the behavior of presenting only a vague, unclear position, position ambiguity in Cahill and Stone (2018) expands the concept to include political parties' presenting conflicting statements on the same issue or staying silent on an issue. I use the term in an inclusive way: position ambiguity means any trait of party position that brings in uncertainty, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in people's party position perceptions and estimations (Tomz and Van Houweling 2009).…”

Voter perceptions of parties’ left–right positions: The role of party strategies

“…The connection between the three strategies is context-dependent: it depends on the situation facing the party. However, the article expects that, since evasiveness can be costly (Rogowski and Tucker, 2018;Cahill and Stone, 2018;Shepsle, 1972), the party will first prefer avoiding the controversial issue altogether. It will, however, resort to controlling the clarity dimension when it has to address the issue by employing one of the two substitutes, ambivalence or ambiguity.…”

Private Donations and Policy Ambiguity

“…Risk-averse voters are more likely to vote for candidates or parties with clear policy positions (Bartels, 1986). American voters associate candidate policy ambiguity with negative valence attributes, such as incompetence and dishonesty, and are thus less likely to vote for ambiguous candidates in their districts (Cahill & Stone, 2018).…”

“…This is the first article to consider how private money affects the communication strategies party use. The clarity of party positions is an important aspect of the democratic process: As parties adopt more ambiguous and incoherent platforms, voters may find it more difficult to correctly identify ideologically proximate parties, increasing the risk of "incorrect" voting (Cahill & Stone, 2018;Lau & Redlawsk, 1997). Understanding the link between party finance and the clarity of policy platforms is valuable to ensure the proper functioning of democratic institutions.…”