Item! Candidates are buying your vote

May 16, 2008

Mention the words “vote buying” and modern-day political villains Jack Abramoff and Tony Rezko probably come to mind, or perhaps special interest groups that donate to a politician’s campaign and expect support when relevant bills come to vote. It may shock American sensibilities to learn that, in an economic sense, our votes are bought with every election in the form of campaign promises that are paid later at a cost to the voter in the form of taxes.

While the Tammany Hall era of beer and sandwiches campaigns has passed, campaign promises are a central strategy in securing voters in the center of the electorate.

In a daring new article for the Journal of Political Economy, “Vote Buying: General Elections,” economists Eddie Dekel (Tel Aviv and Northwestern), Matthew O. Jackson (Stanford), and Asher Wolinsky (Northwestern) explore a theoretical voting system where, in addition to the already accepted campaign promises, votes can be bought and sold, free of stigma. Election strategy is often compared to strategic games, and Dekel and his co-authors provide the model for calculating the economics of the various forms of vote buying. In doing so, they shed light on the economics of our approaching general election.

Building on work showing a correlation between the decline of direct vote buying and the rise of government spending on social programs, Dekel and his co-authors look at the mechanics of different vote buying strategies and calculate the economic costs of both systems by imagining a scenario where both systems are allowed without moral weight given to either side. In this model, the politician may either guarantee a vote through an up-front payment or make a campaign promise of a later pay-off, with no guarantee of a later vote.

The authors find that direct vote buying tends to involve only a small outlay of money and a small group of people. On the other hand, “when parties compete only through campaign promises, the total payments received by voters tend to be substantially higher than under up-front vote buying.” The authors also found that “when parties compete only through campaign promises, the voters whose preferences matter are a specific subset …near the median voter,” whereas a simple bought vote requires no commitment after the election and does not consider voter preference at any point.

As we approach a historic general election, it might be the candidate who best understands how to deploy campaign promises to crucial voters in the median of the electorate that wins the White House. Dekel, Jackson, and Wolinsky’s paper provides a fascinating window into the mechanics of election strategy.

Source: University of Chicago

Explore further: Why would a criminologist support the legalization of marijuana?

Related Stories

A democratic cacophony

October 23, 2015

India is home to one of the most vibrant, engaged and mystifying democracies on the planet. Cambridge academics, across a wide range of disciplines, are working on the ground – with citizens, charities, NGOs, fellow scholars ...

On US campaign trail, your 15 Meerkats of fame

March 20, 2015

As the 2016 presidential race comes into view, social media app-of-the-moment Meerkat offers American candidates a promising but perhaps risky way to reach out to the masses.

Recommended for you

Four pre-Inca tombs found in Peru's Lima

November 27, 2015

Archaeologists in Peru have found four tombs that are more than 1,000 years old in a pyramid-shaped cemetery that now sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Lima, experts said.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2008
Why not "buy" people's vote by not stealing their money?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.