Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:18:55.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert S. Erikson  and
David W. Romero
Robert S. Erikson
Affiliation:
University of Houston
David W. Romero
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most applications of spatial modeling to the problem of electoral competition are pessimistic regarding the prospects for candidate equilibrium in more than one policy dimension. Probabilistic models of the vote, however, increase the likelihood of equilibrium. We expand the probabilistic model to include measured nonissue variables, thereby representing the general multivariate model of behavioral research. For this model we offer a general candidate equilibrium solution and illustrate with some simulations based on 1988 National Election Study data. The more complicated one's model of voters' motivations, the greater appears to be the chance of locating a candidate equilibrium position in policy space.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 1103 - 1126
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Issue Voting under Uncertainty.” American Journal of Political Science 30:709–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Coughlin, Peter. 1986. “Candidate Uncertainty and Redistribution.” Public Choice 50:27–91.Google Scholar
Coughlin, Peter. 1990. “Candidate Uncertainty and Electoral Equilibria.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, ed. Enelow, James C. and Hinich, Melvin J.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coughlin, Peter, and Nitzan, Shmuel. 1981. “Electoral Outcomes with Probabilistic Voting and Nash Social Welfare Maxima.” Journal of Public Economics 15:133–21.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. “The Uncovered Set and the Core.” American Journal of Political Science 31:408–23.Google Scholar
Declerq, Eugene, Hurley, Thomas L., and Luttbeg, Norman R. 1975. “Voting in American Presidential Elections, 1952–1972.” American Politics Quarterly 3:247–83.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Elections. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.” American Journal of Political Science 25:483–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1982. “Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition.” Journal of Politics 44: 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1984a. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1984b. “Probabilistic Voting and the Importance of Centrist Ideologies in Democratic Elections.” Journal of Politics 46:459–78.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1989. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.” Public Choice 61:101–13.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., Hinich, Melvin J., and Mendell, Nancy R. 1986. “An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Spatial Models of Elections.” Journal of Politics 48:675–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1982. “The Uncorrelated Errors Approach to the Problem of Causal Feedback.” Journal of Politics 44:863–81.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77:957–73.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Arthur S. 1966. “Discerning a Causal Pattern among Data on Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 60:913–22.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J. 1977. “Equilibrium in Spatial Voting: The Median Voter Result As an Artifact.” Journal of Economic Theory 16:208–19.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J. 1978. “The Mean Versus the Median in Spatial Voting Games.” In Game Theory and Political Science, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., Ledyard, John, and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1973. “A Theory of Electoral Equilibrium: A Spatial Analysis Based on the Theory of Games.” Journal of Politics 35:154–93.Google Scholar
Jackson, John. 1975. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 19:161–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73:1055–70.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1986. “Covering, Dominance, and Institution-free Properties of Social Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 30:282–314.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1976. “Symmetrical Spatial Games without Majority Rule Equilibrium.” American Political Science Review 70:1171–84.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas R. 1980. “A New Solution Set for Tournaments and Majority Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 24:68–96.Google Scholar
Mueller, Dennis C. 1989. Public Choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Bartels, Larry M. 1985. “New Measures of Issue Salience: An Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 47:1212–20.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73:1071–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Prothro, James, and Jacoby, William. 1982. “Salience As a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 44:41–64.Google Scholar
Riker, William, and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32:737–58.Google Scholar
Schulman, Mark A., and Pomper, Gerald M. 1975. “Variability in Electoral Behavior: Longitudinal Perspectives from Causal Modeling.” American Journal of Political Science 19:1–18.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and Berkman, Michael B. 1986. “Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections.” American Political Science Review 80:567–88.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.