{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016516516516516516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003003003003003003, 'mean_word_length': 4.7956521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Determinants of Participation in Presidential Elections: Comment

There has been a significant shift towards using economic man as a basis for empirical work on voting behavior. This work is a straightforward extension of ordinary economic analysis with the voter making expected utility calculations concerning voting decisions.1 Thus voting has been viewed as both an investment and consumption activity with variations in costs and expected benefits being used to predict the behavior of the voter. The methodological approach used in testing the expected utility maximization hypothesis has for the most part followed the lead of the sociologists in using survey data. The surveys ask people their attitudes on the campaign and then the researchers test whether their behavior is rational. For example, the researcher may test whether people who have strong preferences for one candidate over the other and who feel that the race is close are more likely to vote than people who are indifferent between the candidates and who feel that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion.2 There is a considerable body of work in this tradition. Most notably work by R. Brody and B. Page, M. Silver, J. Jackson, J. Aldrich and 0. Ashenfelter and S. Kelley.3 Ashenfelter and Kelley's work is a very intelligent and careful anal-