Third party voting and the rational voter model: Empirical evidence from recent presidential elections

This paper attempted to demonstrate that a rational voter model as derived by Barzel and Silberberg (1973) can be used (with modifications) to explain third party voting in presidential elections. The empirical findings strongly suggest that the rational voter model is applicable in explaining third party voting. This conclusion likewise suggests that people who vote for third parties do so under similar motivations as people who vote for the major parties. Thus, people do not appear to regard votes for third parties as wasted votes or engage in the voting process in an irrational fashion. Lastly, votes for third parties represent the transmission of individual preferences by people who believe that their vote is important and that in the aggregate their signal may be interpreted as a signal to alter the direction of current policies as run by the major parties. Therefore, it does not appear from the evidence presented here that we should distinguish between or treat differently voting participation for the major parties versus the minor or third parties in presidential elections.The author expresses appreciation to Charles Campbell, Gary Pecquet, Paul W. Grimes, and James E. McClure for comments and criticisms. The usual caveat applies.     

Superfund expenditures and cleanup priorities: Distributive politics or the public interest?

Using data on all final National Priorities List (NPL) sites, this study employs an integrated model of distributive and public interest politics to determine whether the overall pace of cleanup efforts and funding of the 8.5 billion Superfund program over the past eight years reflects self-interested congressional influence or public interest objectives. Despite the fact that both EPA and Congress have substantial incentives to promote the Superfund program, the results indicate that once a site is on the final NPL, there is little committee-based congressional influence over the distribution of site cleanup or funding, although evidence exists that legislators can hasten a site's transition from proposed to final status on the NPL. The chief determinants of cleanup pace and level of funding are the site's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores, whether federal funds are financing the cleanup, and whether the site is designated as a state priority.     

Resources of supplemental security income recipients

In order to receive payments under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, an aged, blind, or disabled person's countable resources must fall below specified limits. The current limits are +2,000 for an individual and +3,000 for a couple. In 1987, when the data were collected for this study, these limits were +1,800 for an individual and +2,700 for a couple. This study found that the resource levels of most SSI recipients were well below the 1987 limits. A majority of SSI recipients had less than +100 in countable resources, and only about 12 percent of SSI recipients had more than +1,000 of resources. These low levels of resources ensure that relatively few recipients become ineligible for SSI payments because of resource accumulation. The most common forms of countable resources held by SSI recipients were cash, checking accounts, and savings accounts.     

A study of Supplemental Security Income awardees

Since its enactment in 1974, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has had a stable caseload of about 4 million recipients. Hidden by this unchanging total is the fact that nearly 9 million persons were served by the program from 1974 to 1986. This study explores some SSI program dynamics by following a group of SSI awardees for a period of 4 years from the initial receipt of award in 1981. Many of these awardees had previous contact with the program either through a previous award or a denial. About 60 percent of the awardees were eligible at the end of the 4-year period. Most persons who became ineligible did so within the first 6 months after the award.     

Two Cheers for Paperwork: The Value and Burden of Federal Reporting

In principle, reporting by state and local governments to thefederal government is essential to the design and implementationof national policy. In practice, reporting often engenders resentmentof federal intrusion and is often dismissed as a waste of stateand local resources. Is reporting useless? Does it strengthenthe federal government at the expense of state and local governments?We asked federal, state, local, and site officials about thevalue and burden of five specific reporting systems in elementaryand secondary education. Common assumptions about reportingdid not correspond to respondent reactions. Both value and burdencascade through the intergovernmental system, reaching policymakersin all governments. Although critics seldom discriminate betweentypes of reporting, we found that reporting designed to improvecompliance with federal standards evoked different judgmentsof value and burden than reporting designed for assistance.These results suggest some new approaches to federal policygoverning the collection of information and to the design ofindividual reporting systems.     

Local Government Procurement of CPA Audit Services: The Role of the States

Recent studies have raised serious concerns about the quality of governmental audits by independent CPAs. Part of the problem is that many governmental units do not use effective audit procurement procedures. This article examines current state guidelines for the procurement of CPA audit services by local governments and recommends an expansion of the states' role in this area.     

Chicago political economy: A public choice perspective

George J. Stigler (Ed.), Chicago studies in political economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Pages xviii + 641.