Public Choice

, Volume 145, Issue 3–4, pp 417–433 | Cite as

Why candidate divergence should be expected to be just as great (or even greater) in competitive seats as in non-competitive ones

  • James Adams
  • Thomas L. Brunell
  • Bernard Grofman
  • Samuel MerrillIII
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Basic Downsian theory predicts candidate convergence toward the views of the median voter in two-candidate elections. Common journalistic wisdom, moreover, leads us to expect these centripetal pressures to be strongest when elections are expected to be close. Yet, the available evidence from the US Congress disconfirms this prediction. To explain this counterintuitive result, we develop a spatial model that allows us to understand the complex interactions of political competition, partisan loyalties, and incentives for voter turnout that can lead office-seeking candidates, especially candidates in close elections, to emphasize policy appeals to their voter base rather than courting the median voter.

Spatial models Candidate polarization US politics 

References

  1. Adams, J., & Merrill, S., III (2008). Candidate and party strategies and two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 344–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J., Bishin, B., & Dow, J. K. (2004). Representation in congressional campaigns: evidence for directional/discounting motivations in United States senate elections. Journal of Politics, 66(2), 348–373. Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J., Merrill, S., III, & Grofman, B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: a cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams, J., Dow, J. K., & Merrill, S., III (2006). The political consequences of alienation-based and indifference-based voter abstention: applications to presidential elections. Political Behavior, 28(1), 65–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldrich, J. (1995). Why parties? The origins and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  6. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues, and the Perot candidacy: voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 714–744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 55–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, S., & Glomm, G. (1992). Alienation, indifference, and the choice of ideological position. Social Choice and Welfare, 9, 17–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J., & Stewart, C. (2001). Candidate positioning in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baughman, J. (2004). Party, constituency and representation: votes on abortion in the British House of Commons. Public Choice, 120, 63–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bishin, B. (2000). Constituency influence in Congress: does subconstituency matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 389–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishin, B. (2009). Tyranny of the minority: the subconstituency politics theory of representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Brody, R., & Page, B. (1973). Indifference, alienation, and rational decisions: the effects of candidate evaluation on turnout and the vote. Public Choice, 15, 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burden, B. (2001). The polarizing effects of congressional elections. In P. F. Galderisi, M. Ezra, & M. Lyons (Eds.), Congressional primaries and the politics of representation. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield. Google Scholar
  15. Burden, B., & Lacy, L. (1999). The vote-stealing and turnout effects of third-party candidates in US presidential elections, 1968–1996. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA. Google Scholar
  16. Butler, D. (2006). Explaining the increased polarization in the US Congress. Typescript. Google Scholar
  17. Callander, S., & Wilson, C. (2006). Context-dependent voting. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(3), 227–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  19. Clinton, J. D. (2006). Representation in Congress: constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 397–409. Google Scholar
  20. Clinton, J. D., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of legislative behavior: a unified approach. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 355–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  22. Endersby, J., & Galatas, S. (1998). British parties and spatial competition: dimensions of evaluation in the 1992 election. Public Choice, 97, 363–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1989). A general probabilistic spatial theory of elections. Public Choice, 61(2), 101–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erikson, R., & Romero, D. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review, 84, 1103–1126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erikson, R., & Wright, G. (1997). Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In L. Dodd & B. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (6th ed.). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press. Google Scholar
  26. Erikson, R., & Wright, G. (2000). Representation of constituency ideology in congress. In D. Brady, J. Cogan, & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Continuity and change in House elections. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: house members in their districts. Boston: Little Brown. Google Scholar
  28. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25–46. Polsby, N. (Ed.). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Groseclose, T., & Snyder, J. M. (2000). Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 187–205. Google Scholar
  32. Guttman, J. M., Hilger, N., & Shachmurove, Y. (1994). Voting as investment vs. voting as consumption—new evidence. Kyklos, 47(2), 197–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heckman, J. J., & Snyder, J. M. (1997). Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 142–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hinich, M., & Ordeshook, P. (1970). Plurality maximization versus vote maximization: a spatial analysis with variable participation. American Political Science Review, 64(3), 772–791. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jennings, K., & Niemi, R. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Kenny, L., & Lotfinia, B. (2005). Evidence on the importance of spatial models in presidential nominations and elections. Public Choice, 123(3), 439–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Key, V. O. (1947). Politics, parties, and pressure groups. New York: Crowell Company. Google Scholar
  38. Krasno, J. S. (1994). Challengers, competition, and reelection: comparing Senate and House Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  39. Lacy, D., & Paolino, P. (1998). Downsian voting and separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1180–1199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, D. S., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the US House. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markus, G. A., & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73, 1055–1070. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McIver, J. P., Erikson, R. S., & Wright, G. C. (1993). Public opinion and public policy: a view from the states. In Dodd, L. C., & Jillson, C. (Eds.), New perspectives on American politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press. Google Scholar
  43. Merrill, S., III, & Adams, J. (2002). Centrifugal incentives in multicandidate elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14(3), 275–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Millbank, D., & Allen, M. (2004). Bush fortifies conservative base: campaign seeks solid support before wooing swing voters. Washington Post, July 15. Google Scholar
  45. Miller, G., & Schofield, N. (2003). Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 97, 245–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miniter, B. (2005). The McCain myth: the moderation that makes him a Senate powerhouse will keep him out of the White House. Wall Street Journal, May 31. Google Scholar
  48. Nagourney, A. (2003). Political parties shift emphases to core voters. New York Times, August 30. Google Scholar
  49. Owen, G., & Grofman, B. (2006). Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: persistent divergence of party positions. Social Choice and Welfare, 26(3), 547–569. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palfrey, T. (1984). Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies, 51, 139–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peress, M. (2008). Securing the base: electoral competition under variable turnout (Typescript). University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  52. Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  53. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46, 1061–1079. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roemer, J. (2001). Political competition: theory and applications. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  55. Schmidt, A., Kenny, L., & Morton, R. (1996). Evidence of electoral accountability in the US Senate: are unfaithful agents really punished? Economic Enquiry, 34, 545–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schofield, N. (2004). Equilibrium in the spatial ‘valence’ model of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16, 447–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2005). Modeling the interaction of parties, activists and voters: why is the political center so empty? European Journal of Political Research, 44(3), 355–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty democracy: elections and legislative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Serra, G. (2008). Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous Valence. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, September 2008. Google Scholar
  60. Snyder, J. (1994). Safe seats, marginal seats, and party platforms: the logic of party differentiation. Economics and Politics, 6(3), 201–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stone, W., & Simas, E. (2008). Candidate valence and ideological positions in the 2006 elections (Typescript). Google Scholar
  62. Toner, R. (2004). Political memo. New York Times, p. 141, 19 December 2004. Google Scholar
  63. Uslaner, E. M. (1999). The movers and the shirkers: representatives and ideologues in the Senate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  64. Van Houweling, R. P., & Sniderman, P. M. (2005). The political logic of a Downsian space (Working paper). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Adams
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Brunell
    • 2
  • Bernard Grofman
    • 3
  • Samuel MerrillIII
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.The School of Policy ScienceUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWilkes UniversityWilkes-BarreUSA

Personalised recommendations