Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Kennedy fundraises off of proposed budget cuts
Next Post: Would term limits make much of a difference?
Posted in:
* From the abstract to a new study involving Republican presidential primary voting in Illinois…
We exploit a natural experiment to study voter taste-based discrimination against nonwhite political candidates. In Illinois Republican presidential primary elections, voters do not vote for presidential candidates directly. Instead, they vote delegate- by-delegate for delegate candidates listed as bound to vote for particular presidential candidates at the Republican nominating convention. To maximize their support for their preferred presidential candidate, voters must vote for all that candidate’s delegates. However, some delegates’ names imply they are not white. Incentives for statistical discrimination against nonwhite delegates are negligible, as delegates have effectively no discretion, and taste-based discrimination against them is costly, as it undermines voters’ preferred presidential candidates.
Examining within-presidential- candidate variation in delegate vote totals in primaries from 2000–2016, we estimate that about 10 percent of voters do not vote for their preferred presidential candidate’s delegates who have names that indicate the delegates are nonwhite, indicating that a considerable share of voters act upon racially-discriminatory tastes. This finding is robust to multiple methods for measuring delegate race, to controls for voters’ possible prior information about delegates, to ballot order, and to other possible confounds we consider. Heterogeneity across candidates and geographies is also broadly consistent with taste-based theories.
* You may recall this story from last March…
If Donald Trump somehow falls three delegates short of reaching the magic 1,237 delegates needed for the Republican nomination, he may be haunted by an obscure outcome from the primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday. There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Kennedy fundraises off of proposed budget cuts
Next Post: Would term limits make much of a difference?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can we have a do over?
Comment by Red rider Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:12 am
===There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.===
I’d like to think it’s more about names that seem more familiar to voters and not voters steering away from foreign-sounding names. The irony is Trump ran a campaign that made being less inclusive a “thing”.
Voting is another “mirror” moment for America when we look how we vote, and question why the tallies are what they are.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:29 am
Mark Fairchild. Janice Hart.
Comment by Put the fun in unfunded Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:02 am
===Mark Fairchild. Janice Hart. ===
Yep. Good point.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:10 am
==- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:29 am:==
What’s really a “foreign-sounding” name?
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:24 am
- Precinct Captain -
I was quoting. While quoting, my intent was to mock this idea of that term and highlight the absurdity of what names voters will choose… Like “Hart” and “Fairchild”, as great examples, and not realizing who “Hart” and “Fairchild” actually are.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:28 am
How does this compare to previous primaries from either parties? How can anyone know if this is specifically a 2016 GOP result?
Why were these names singled out, while other distinctively foreign names weren’t? Illinoisians have over 200 years of electing citizens without Anglo-Saxon names. Why these names? Did the “researcher” have an issue with these names, but not others?
Looking for thought crimes is easier when you think about them. Injecting thought crimes into a political process not designed to actually measure such thing, isn’t scientific. Its political bias.
Fascinating, but ridiculous.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:29 am
Not to mention that while the paper notes only in 2015 two states had non-white governors, both were in majority white states.
Both were also Republican…..
Comment by Fav Human Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:49 am
@VanillaMan,
I’m reading the paper right now. The results are not solely drawn from the 2016 election. The results in the abstract are based on observations from the 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016 contested Republican primaries in Illinois. To wit “Our sample spans 2,386 unique delegate candidates and 19,769 vote-count observations, since we observe how a delegate candidate did in multiple county-congressional district intersections, representing a total of 22.3 million votes.”
Comment by GV Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:50 am
I do not believe this phenomenon is unique to the Republican primary electorate or white voters. I’m willing to bet, for example, that Hispanic voters express a preference for Hispanic candidates, that black voters for black candidates, etc. You don’t see many white Democratic candidates nominated in majority Hispanic or black districts. Except . . . Madigan!
Comment by Sage Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:59 am
Against what norm is this being measured?
How do other parties compare?
What impact had WW2 have on candidates with Asian, German or Italian sounding names?
What impact had WW1 have on candidates with foreign sounding names?
Is this an issue during wartime?
Is this an issue we can measure against a normative bias?
Do we see a bias against candidates with Anglo surnames within minority voting districts?
Citizens vote in secret. We don’t know why they vote as they do. Ascertaining motives is a waste of time.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:00 am
I do not believe this phenomenon is unique to the Republican primary electorate or white voters.
That’s easily proven. Anytime you redistrict. I remember a story in the 90’s about a NYC congressman working his new district. A long term D, he lost a primary to a Hispanic D.
Exchanging a “clout heavy” Congressman for a newbie is definitely not a rational decision. Especially as their position on the issues was identical, as the article made clear.
Comment by Fav Human Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:06 am
===Ascertaining motives is a waste of time===
Huh? Ascertaining voter motives and then using those motives to win elections is the very definition of what political campaigns do.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:10 am
@VM-
Again, read the paper. “relevant data was not available prior to 2000″
If you’ve got some WWI and WW2 data, I’m sure the researchers would be happy to see it. Send it on.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:48 am
–Mark Fairchild. Janice Hart…..–
…defeated George Sangemeister and Aurelia Pucinski. Absolutely clobbered them Downstate.
Anyone seen those LaRouche loonies lately? Peter Bowen used to walk around the plaza in front of the Wrigley Building with a sandwich board saying something-something about Queen Elizabeth and drugs for a lot of years.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 2:20 pm