Federal Spending

American Political Science Review journal

Federal spending in this country is a hot topic for debate. It is an issue that has plagued this country recently and has shifted many Americans view on how the United States government should be ran and operated. Nobody wants a huge federal deficit, but everybody wants money to be spent on them, or in this case their community. This article tests whether an increase in government spending in a certain area or community will increase and influence voters in that area to vote for which ever nominee elected to spend money in that community. The main states that benefit the most out of this are the swing states because they are the most important states to win during the election process and on the campaign trail. The author of this article uses a wide variety of variables to test with, such as, a persons partisanship, family income, etc. A prime example used in this article is when President Bush was on the campaign trail in 2004. He agreed to increase government spending in the state of North Dakota for the improvement of community health centers in Sioux Falls. The result of the votes showed that a majority of the voters elected President Bush to be president again. Coincidence?

After doing studies from the last few presidential elections from 1988-2008, results show that an increase in government spending in a particular area will swing that areas vote towards the nominee. Results also show that liberals and moderate voters are more likely to reward presidents for federal spending more than conservatives. All in all, although voters may claim to favor deficit reduction, presidents who deliver such benefits are rewarded at the ballot box.

Source: Douglas Kriner and Andrew Reeves, "The influence of Federal spending on Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Volume 106, Number 2, May 2012, pp. 348-366.