Follow @AdamBouyamourn
Wednesday 29 August 2012
Thursday 29 March 2012
I'm Adam Bouyamourn and I approve of this message
@MittRomney ooooooh burrrn!!!
— Adam Bouyamourn (@AdamBouyamourn) March 29, 2012
How not to command the news agenda
'Panic,' advised Francis Maude, and they did.
The impact of his remark is impressive, when you consider how few people know who he is or what he does all day. This is a good illustration of the common finding that elites have a big role to play in influencing mass opinion, even when most people don't fully and consciously attend to politicians' public statements. While most US voters, for example, cannot name their Congressman unprompted, many more recognize their representatives' name on a ballot paper.
The impact of his remark is impressive, when you consider how few people know who he is or what he does all day. This is a good illustration of the common finding that elites have a big role to play in influencing mass opinion, even when most people don't fully and consciously attend to politicians' public statements. While most US voters, for example, cannot name their Congressman unprompted, many more recognize their representatives' name on a ballot paper.
Monday 26 March 2012
First you get the money
One of many crimes committed by Lloyd George in the eyes of his Asquithian detractors was that he had his Chief Whip Freddy Guest tout peerages in London gentlemen’s clubs. Harold Wilson sullied his legacy by signing off on the notorious ‘Lavender List’, which rewarded corrupt businessmen and celebrities. Blair gave Ecclestone an exemption from restrictions on cigarette advertising in F1 for £1m. British political parties have always traded their finite stocks of patronage resources (honours and access) for funding. And British parties have always needed to do so: they are poorer than their compatriots in Italy, France, Sweden, Germany, and the US. David Cameron is only the most recent inheritor of a longstanding tradition.
Fortunately, British politicians don’t need much money. Thanks to Gladstone’s 1883 Corrupt Practices Act spending on elections is capped at low levels. Only in England could Zac Goldsmith have a spat with Jon Snow over a few hoodies.
But there’s a downside to this frugality. And to see this, we should turn to the US.
A paper by Ansolabehere and Jones tells us that voters in Congressional elections are remarkably responsive to their representatives' positions on key issues. To a surprising extent, voting behaviour can punish deviations from median voter preferences on key issues. Even in a country with a Congressional re-election rate topping 97%, it doesn’t pay to disobey your constituents. Representatives who do so get punished, either by losing, or by having to contest primaries against candidates who are closer to the constituency median. (The re-election rate is so high in part because very few candidates dare to betray their voters.)
This is not the British experience. Constituency elections are almost never decided by local issues, but by national trends. MPs lack the power to procure pork for key voters, and the autonomy to challenge the party line on all by a few key issues.
Crucially, they also lack the money. With caps on spending around £10,000 per constituency, parties cannot buy enough advertising to illustrate opponents’ opinions on key issues. Nor can they spend money on Get Out The Vote drives. In short, when money is strictly controlled, MPs and candidates cannot persuade by campaigning. In the US, advertising and issue campaigning is plentiful, and voters use this information to make decisions.
As Biggie Smalls almost said, in politics, more money leads to more problems. It creates strong tendencies to corruption, and facilitates interest group capture of the apparatus of the state. But increased spending also strengthens voters: it makes them more likely to get what they want. And political systems that give voters what they want have, historically, been better systems than those that don’t.
Fortunately, British politicians don’t need much money. Thanks to Gladstone’s 1883 Corrupt Practices Act spending on elections is capped at low levels. Only in England could Zac Goldsmith have a spat with Jon Snow over a few hoodies.
But there’s a downside to this frugality. And to see this, we should turn to the US.
A paper by Ansolabehere and Jones tells us that voters in Congressional elections are remarkably responsive to their representatives' positions on key issues. To a surprising extent, voting behaviour can punish deviations from median voter preferences on key issues. Even in a country with a Congressional re-election rate topping 97%, it doesn’t pay to disobey your constituents. Representatives who do so get punished, either by losing, or by having to contest primaries against candidates who are closer to the constituency median. (The re-election rate is so high in part because very few candidates dare to betray their voters.)
This is not the British experience. Constituency elections are almost never decided by local issues, but by national trends. MPs lack the power to procure pork for key voters, and the autonomy to challenge the party line on all by a few key issues.
Crucially, they also lack the money. With caps on spending around £10,000 per constituency, parties cannot buy enough advertising to illustrate opponents’ opinions on key issues. Nor can they spend money on Get Out The Vote drives. In short, when money is strictly controlled, MPs and candidates cannot persuade by campaigning. In the US, advertising and issue campaigning is plentiful, and voters use this information to make decisions.
As Biggie Smalls almost said, in politics, more money leads to more problems. It creates strong tendencies to corruption, and facilitates interest group capture of the apparatus of the state. But increased spending also strengthens voters: it makes them more likely to get what they want. And political systems that give voters what they want have, historically, been better systems than those that don’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)