Information and Elections

Preface to the Revised Edition

Preface to the Revised Edition It is very exciting to be able to revisit this research project and to have the opportunity to test my theoretical predictions on a sixth presidential election, which completes a two decade cycle of presidential elections (1976-1996). For many reasons, the 1996 presidential election provides an excellent arena in which I can test the same predictions about the role that information plays in presidential election campaigns; the rationale for studying the 1996 campaign and the new empirical results are presented in chapter 12 of this revised book. The new empirical results from the 1996 presidential election were made possible by the National Election Studies (NBS), which continues to provide quality electoral surveys to the academic community. I had the great fortune to be on the planning board for the 1996 NBS study. With the support of both fellow planning board members and the NBS Board of Overseers, the 1996 NBS study contained many survey items which are perfect for the study of information and electoral behavior-most importantly, this study included many questions asking respondents how uncertain they are about their placements of presidential candidates on issues. Hopefully the analyses contained in chapter 12 will help to guarantee a place for similar survey questions in future NBS surveys. These new results from the 1996 NBS survey have been refined after presentation and discussion in seminar programs at three great universities: the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, and the University of Michigan. For their hospitality and great comments and suggestions I thank Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Joseph Cappella , and a number of exciting graduate students at the Annenberg School of Communication; John Brehm and Peter Lange at Duke University; and John Jackson, Adam Berinsky and Paul Freedman from the University of Michigan. Also, I presented these results in a Southern California Political Methodology Program (SCAMP) conference hosted by the University of California, Riverside ; as usual, the wit and debate from my colleagues and friends in Southern California, Neal Beck, Jonathan Nagler, and Mohan Penubarti was invaluable. Closer to home, I continued to benefit from the insight and discussion viii Preface to the Revised Edition with colleagues and students at Caltech. In particular, Jonathan Katz read an initial draft of this new research and his comments are incorporated into the final product. David Grether and Robert Sherman provided their insight into the bootstrapping analysis used in chapter 12. Tara Butterfield, Fred Boehmke, Garrett Glasgow, and Fang Wang each contributed to this research in various ways. ...