Questions you never thought to ask: Are shark attacks bad for democracy?
The answer, according to Christopher Achen of Princeton and Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt (and the Monkey Cage), is yes: Conventional accounts of retrospective voting assume that voters can use changes in their own welfare to discern whether incumbent leaders have governed well or badly. We challenge this assumption, arguing that the connection between incumbents’ performance ...
The answer, according to Christopher Achen of Princeton and Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt (and the Monkey Cage), is yes:
Conventional accounts of retrospective voting assume that voters can use changes in their own welfare to discern whether incumbent leaders have governed well or badly. We challenge this assumption, arguing that the connection between incumbents' performance and voters' subjective well-being is likely to be highly random. As a result, retrospective voting is harder than it seems, and incumbents often get rewarded or punished for events beyond their control. We illustrate this point by tracing the electoral impact of a clearly random event-a dramatic series of shark attacks in New Jersey in 1916. We show that voters in the affected communities significantly punished the incumbent president, Woodrow Wilson, at the polls. We also develop a simple formal model demonstrating that the randomness of "blind retrospection" significantly impairs the effectiveness of elections as mechanisms for political accountability.
The 1916 New Jersey shark attacks resulted in the deaths of four people and one injury, and partially inspired the book and movie Jaws. According to the paper Wilson -- himself a New Jersey governor and Asbury Park resident -- held cabinet level meetings to discuss the crisis, though there wasn't much the Federal government could do beyond sending in the Coast Guard and the president's time was beginning to be dominated by the deteriorating situation in Europe.
The answer, according to Christopher Achen of Princeton and Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt (and the Monkey Cage), is yes:
Conventional accounts of retrospective voting assume that voters can use changes in their own welfare to discern whether incumbent leaders have governed well or badly. We challenge this assumption, arguing that the connection between incumbents’ performance and voters’ subjective well-being is likely to be highly random. As a result, retrospective voting is harder than it seems, and incumbents often get rewarded or punished for events beyond their control. We illustrate this point by tracing the electoral impact of a clearly random event-a dramatic series of shark attacks in New Jersey in 1916. We show that voters in the affected communities significantly punished the incumbent president, Woodrow Wilson, at the polls. We also develop a simple formal model demonstrating that the randomness of "blind retrospection" significantly impairs the effectiveness of elections as mechanisms for political accountability.
The 1916 New Jersey shark attacks resulted in the deaths of four people and one injury, and partially inspired the book and movie Jaws. According to the paper Wilson — himself a New Jersey governor and Asbury Park resident — held cabinet level meetings to discuss the crisis, though there wasn’t much the Federal government could do beyond sending in the Coast Guard and the president’s time was beginning to be dominated by the deteriorating situation in Europe.
Of course, Wilson won the election, even without New Jersey, by a razor thin margin, so in the end the sharks didn’t have a huge impact on history, though it’s tempting to wonder how President Hughes might have handled U.S. entry into World War I if the maneaters had made it down to, say, Virginia Beach.
My favorite detail from the paper is that the incredulous New York Times, skeptical that a shark would ever travel as far north as New Jersey, put the story on page 18 with the headline, "Dies After Attack By Fish."
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
