Informative Cheap Talk in Elections∗

Why do office-motivated politicians sometimes espouse views that are non-congruent with their electorate’s? Can non-congruent statements convey any information about what a politician will do if elected, and if so, why would voters elect a politician who makes such statements? We develop a model of credible, costless, and non-binding communication in elections. The foundation is an endogenous voter preference for a politician who is known to be non-congruent over one whose congruence is sufficiently uncertain. This preference arises because uncertainty about an elected official’s policy preferences generates policy-making distortions due to reputation/career concerns. Informative cheap talk can increase or decrease voter welfare because of how it affects post-electoral policymaking. The scope for welfare benefits increases in the strength of politicians ’ reputation concerns