How Many Metas?

Let's build a simple model. Assume I'm a New Hampshire Democratic primary voter. I want to vote for the candidate I like best—let's say Dean—but have a stronger preference for picking someone who's electable, and I'd also like for whomever's going to win to come out of the primarys strong. That is, if (say) Kerry's going to win anyway, I'd rather he be the clear favorite so he can start focusing on Bush rather than sniping at other candidates. The Iowa results, then, have the clear potential to set off a social cascade effect. And I think it's pretty straightforward to show that the level of calculation people go through in deciding how to vote will determine the strength of that cascade.

Call my intrinsic preference—the candidate I like best on policy and personality—my first order calculation. The second order calculation weighs in the probabilities of victory gleaned from Iowa, which will factor into my reasoning, but may not be dispositive. But then there's my third order calculation: I assume other people in NH are also doing a second order calculation, which may further increase my sense that Kerry's likely to win. The effect is further magnified as I do more metacalculations. Obviously, that doesn't mean we all ultimately end up converging on Kerry—some people want to make a statement, and they'll vote for Kucinich. But there's definitely a feedback effect of some magnitude.

Here's the more controversial part: Because most people don't actually do many metas in their own calculations, the speed of the news cycle, which feeds back the previous iteration of the calculus for us, should correlate with the magnitude of the cascade effect. That is, each poll that's conducted reflects people's prior electability estimates and then feeds back into them. I mention this because Adam Clymer's got a Times op-ed today suggesting that a bigger gap between Iowa and New Hampshire might have muted this follow-the-leader effect. But if the feedback effect I'm imagining is sufficiently strong, just the opposite might be the case.

Comments

[joe]

It would likely be a wash. Kerry's smaller NH win would tend to decrease the sense that his victory is inevitable, but increase the sense that voting for him is important to avoid a lengthy fight.

[Chris Anderson]

I've been puzzling over the relentless focus on "electability" when it comes to Kerry. What exactly does "electability" mean when it trumps more serious considerations?

Here's what I think it means: "I don't really like the guy (don't hate him either), but it sure seems like other people are going to be voting for him, and I want Bush out of the White House, therefore I'm voting for Kerry."

In my opinion, that's no recipe for a dem victory in November.

[Julian Sanchez]

Perhaps, but "I really like this guy's hardline leftism, despite the fact that it'll alienate a huge swath of swing voters, so I'm going to vote for him" isn't in the election issue of Bon Appetit either.

[Shannon Love]

In biology and cybernetics, with all other variables held constant, the longer a signal takes to arrive the weaker the feedback effect. Further, the longer signal lags increases the relative strength of any countervailing signals. So I think Clymer right on this one.

I don't think that a strong enough feedback effect exist between media polls and peoples subsequent voting for the cascade you describe to occur. People do not to any significant degree give responses in a poll on Tuesday based on the results of poll they read about on Monday. The bandwagon effect, i.e. the practical and psychological need to back the perceived winner, drowns out virtually all other signals and the close early primaries definitely amplifies the bandwagon effect.

[Now I Won't Vote]

Now I have a headache.

[Ron Hardin]

There's also the bus plunge effect, which is the reason this stuff is in the news.

[Brian]

Makes sense to me.

Kerry won solidly here in AZ, and by spending less money here than any other candidate still in the race except for Sharpton and Kucinich. I don't think I saw a John Kerry ad on TV even once, and I saw quite a few for Dean, Edwards, and Lieberman, and TONS for Clark.

One has to wonder how this process would be different if all the primaries were held on one day.

[Mark Anderson]

I've been puzzling over electibility also, Chris. Besides Kucinich, who is a hardline leftist who may alienate voters? Maybe Dean, but only because that's how he was pegged for having a strong anti-war stance and being from Vermont. So I'm back to wondering how they all decided on Kerry. Part of me wants Kerry to lose big to show how nebulous this electibilty thing is and kill all these stories about McGovern.

[Swamp Justice]

electibility = I'll vote for him because I think someone else will vote for him, but they are voting for him because THEY think YOU are voting for him. Circular logic caught in a whirlwind. :-

[thoreau]

Electability is really a simple concept:

Can this candidate defeat George Bush? (or insert name of other nemesis here, in the case of other elections)

It's not an easy question to answer without a crystal ball, but it's an easy question to pose and contemplate.

[joe]

electability = passes the laugh test for president

If someone is electable, a large number of people can bring themselves to vote for him. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win. A lot of races have two electable candidates. Mondale? Yes. Reagan? Sure. Dole? Sure. Clinton...mmmmmmm, ok, in under the wire. Gore? Absolutely. Gingrich? Uh uh. John McCain? Yes. Rep Joe Kennedy? No way. That's why he quit. Good guy, but not nuclear football material.

John Kerry? Absolutely.

[Andrew]

The Winnowing Effect seems to be in play. I am bemused by how quickly Dean's following has collapsed...he's losing in Washington, for Christ's sake!

I think it has to do with Kerry...and curiously with the way Dean focused so much of his venom on him all summer. Dean's voters feel like they KNOW Kerry, and oddly enough TRUST him-- they feel like they have heard the worst that can be said about him (from their viewpoint) and he isn't THAT bad.

When they started to look for someone else, the idea of Kerry suggested itself, AND the availability of this ready alternative made it easier to decide to quit Dean...a self-reinforcing effect.

(When it comes to women, every savvy guy knows you don't dis the competition.)

I doubt all the other candidates together caught as many Dean defectors.

[MALAK]

This sounds too much like," now that you know that I know that you know . . ." so I'm going back to work before I get a headache.

[Heather]

I'm voting on Saturday for Dean. If he doesn't win the nod I plan on throwing my vote away on some third party.

[D Money]

we just went over this stuff in my Political Economy here at school.