Voting for 'Sin' in Kansas

A principal-agent framework is used to investigate the influence of personal ideology, constituent interests, & special interests on voting behavior by the 125 members of the Kansas House of Representatives with regard to 3 1986 constitutional amendments: allowing liquor by the drink, pari-mutue...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Public choice 1988-05, Vol.57 (2), p.127-139
Main Authors: Hersch, Philip L., McDougall, Gerald S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Businesspeople
Coefficients
Congressional voting
Conservatism
ECONOMIC MEASURES
KANSAS
Legislative Bodies
Legislators
Lotteries
Political action committees
POLITICAL AND POWER PROCESS
Political parties
Public opinion (sin)
Religious Attitudes
Roll call votes
UNITED STATES, 1945 TO PRESENT
VOTING
Voting Behavior
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A principal-agent framework is used to investigate the influence of personal ideology, constituent interests, & special interests on voting behavior by the 125 members of the Kansas House of Representatives with regard to 3 1986 constitutional amendments: allowing liquor by the drink, pari-mutuel wagering, & a state-operated lottery. The use of state data is particularly interesting because it juxtaposes economic development with ethical/moral development, & investigation of "sin" issues allows easier identification of the role of personal ideology in voting behavior. Religious affiliation & occupation are indicator variables for ideology, & source of political contributions for special interests. Two-equation logit specification, estimated using generalized least squares techniques, shows both constituent preferences & own ideology to have statistically significant effects, but there is no evidence that special interests influenced House members. Though debate concerning the efficiency of representative government will surely continue, the results support both those who believe constituent interests dominate representative behavior & those who favor a more eclectic model, allowing for shirking. 2 Tables, 10 References. Modified AA
ISSN:0048-5829
1573-7101
DOI:10.1007/BF00052401