How Priming Fairness and Priming Constitutionality Impact the Effect of Partisan Self-Interest on Citizen Support for Election Reforms

Abstract

Abstract Prior research suggests that citizen attitudes toward electoral laws and reforms derive from how individuals weigh two competing considerations: the rule’s procedural fairness and one’s partisan self-interest (or how they perceive the policy affects their party’s electoral prospects). Recent experimental work shows that despite a role for fairness concerns, policy support levels shift (at least to a degree) based on its anticipated impact on who votes. We examine how the presentation of the trade-off between fairness and partisan advantage influences election reform opinions. Using two sets of survey experiments, we find that priming fairness reduces, but does not eliminate, the effect of partisan self-interest in shaping policy evaluations. Priming a reform’s constitutionality so as to provide cover to infringe upon fairness considerations, however, does not exacerbate the impact of partisan self-interest on support for adoption. These results expand our understanding of how citizens weigh different factors when assessing electoral policies.