•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Judicial reform is a challenging issue for political activists to address. Reformers face two barriers in persuading voters to support institutional changes—first, in communicating the impact of extant institutions on unwanted outcomes; and, secondly, of persuading them to support a different institutional solution. Voters are frequently underinformed about judicial institutions and appear reluctant to make changes, and, especially in American politics, the judicial system often acts as the institutional “third rail.” To understand the ability of voters to connect judicial institutions with different outcomes under different campaign messaging, we use an experiment to present pro and anti-judicial election messages to examine the degree to which subjects connect judicial selection mechanisms with judicial behavior. We find that certain types of campaign messages are effective in isolation, but in a competitive campaign environment, their impact shifts depending on oppositional strategies. Our findings demonstrate both that messaging can shape citizen attitudes towards public support of institutional reform, but that in the context of a competitive election, countermessaging can dramatically diminish their impact.

Download

Share

COinS