Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 209–215 | Cite as

When winning is the only thing: pure strategy Nash equilibria in a three-candidate spatial voting model

  • Richard A. Chisik
  • Robert J. Lemke
Original Paper

Abstract

It is well known that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibria (PSNE) in the standard three-candidate spatial voting model when candidates maximize their share of the vote. When all that matters to the candidates is winning the election, however, we show that PSNE do exist. We provide a complete characterization of such equilibria and then extend our results to elections with an arbitrary number of candidates.

Keywords

Median Voter Vote Share Vote Model Approval Vote Additional Candidate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank John Boyd, Kevin Dougherty, Julian Edwards, Santanu Roy, and an anonymous referee for the helpful comments. All remaining errors are our own.

References

  1. Chisik RA, Lemke RJ (2004) When winning is the only thing: pure strategy Nash equilibria in a three-candidate spatial voting model. Working paper 04-07, Florida International UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Cox GW (1985) Electoral equilibrium under approval voting. Am J Polit Sci 29:112–118Google Scholar
  3. Cox GW (1987) Electoral equilibrium under alternative voting institutions. Am J Polit Sci 31:82–108Google Scholar
  4. Cox GW (1990) Multicandidate spatial competition. In: Enelow JM, Hinich MJ (eds) Advances in the spatial theory of voting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 179–198Google Scholar
  5. Denzau A, Kats A, Slutsky S (1985) Multi-agent equilibria with market share and ranking objectives. Soc Choice Welf 2:95–117MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eaton BC, Lipsey RG (1975) The principle of minimum differentiation reconsidered: some new developments in the theory of spatial competition. Rev Econ Stud 42:27–49Google Scholar
  7. Greenberg J, Shepsle K (1987) The effect of electoral rewards in multiparty competition with entry. Am Polit Sci Rev 81:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Econ J 39:41–57Google Scholar
  9. Myerson RB, Weber RJ (1993) A theory of voting equilibria. Am Polit Sci Rev 87:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myerson RB (1999) Theoretical comparisons of electoral systems. Eur Econ Rev 43:671–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Osborne MJ (1993) Candidate positioning and entry in a political competition. Games Econ Behav 5:133–151zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Osborne MJ (1995) Spatial models of political competition under plurality rule: a survey of some explanations of the number of candidates and the positions they take. Can J Econ 28:261–301Google Scholar
  13. Palfrey TR (1984) Spatial equilibrium with entry. Rev Econ Stud 51:139–156zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Shepsle KA (1991) Models of multiparty electoral competition. Harwood Academic, Chur, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics DM-309CFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and BusinessLake Forest CollegeLake ForestUSA

Personalised recommendations