Voting in Groups, Thinking like Ideologues: The Paradox of Partisan Conflict

• In Event: Donald Trump and Voters

Abstract

Americans have rarely been better-informed about the policies that divide Republicans and Democrats, but their voting behavior is increasingly tethered to prejudice and sectarianism. To address this disconnect, I suggest that how Americans perceive partisan choice is distinct from how campaigns portray partisan conflict. Consequently,
partisan voting should covary with the prejudices that campaigns foment -- even as non-electoral forms of partisan expression covary with policy attitudes. Using an original survey experiment on the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, I asked respondents to indicate either (1) their policy-neutral feelings toward party-stereotypical groups or (2) their beliefs about whether these groups' policy attitudes should be represented in government. Compared to co-partisans that did not vote in their parties' midterm primaries, partisan voters asserted stronger warmth bias toward co-partisan groups but favored co-partisan groups' policy preferences at similar rates. However, the reverse pattern held for a non-electoral form of partisan expression: blanket endorsement or opposition to several executive orders endorsed by President Trump. Unlike the decision to vote, party-line verdicts on Trump's initiatives were associated with partisan policy alignment rather than warmth bias toward co-partisan groups. Together, these results help reconcile group and issue-based accounts of mass partisanship. Outside the voting booth, ideology offers citizens the easiest shorthand for understanding parties. But on Election Day, group conflict offers party organizations the easiest strategy for mobilizing supporters.

Author

• Eric R. Schmidt, Concordia College