SERIEs

, Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp 73–93 | Cite as

An agenda-setting model of electoral competition

Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents a model of electoral competition focusing on the formation of the public agenda. An incumbent government and a challenger party in opposition compete in elections by choosing the issues that will key out their campaigns. Giving salience to an issue implies proposing an innovative policy proposal, alternative to the status-quo. Parties trade off the issues with high salience in voters’ concerns and those with broad agreement on some alternative policy proposal. Each party expects a higher probability of victory if the issue it chooses becomes salient in the voters’ decision. But remarkably, the issues which are considered the most important ones by a majority of voters may not be given salience during the electoral campaign. An incumbent government may survive in spite of its bad policy performance if there is no sufficiently broad agreement on a policy alternative. We illustrate the analytical potential of the model with the case of the United States presidential election in 2004.

Keywords

Agenda Elections Political competition Issues Salience Agreement 

JEL Classification

D72 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Abramson PR, Aldrich JH, Rohde DW (2005) The 2004 presidential election: the emergence of a permanent majority?. Polit Sci Q 120(1): 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramson PR, Aldrich JH, Rohde DW, Rickershauser J, Rohde DW (2007) Fear in the voting booth: the 2004 presidential election. Polit Behav 29(2): 197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amorós P, Puy SM (2007) Dialogue or issue divergence in the political campaign? CORE Discussion paper 2007/84Google Scholar
  4. Amorós P, Puy SM (2010) Indicators of electoral victory. Public Choice 144: 239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (2009) Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budge I (1993) Issues, dimensions, and agenda change in postwar democracies: long-term trends in party election programs and newspaper reports in twenty-three democracies. In: Agenda formation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 41–80Google Scholar
  7. Budge I, Klingemann H-D, Volkens A, Bara J, Tanenbaum E (2001) Mapping policy preferences: estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Burden BC, Sanberg JNR (2003) Budget rhetoric in presidential campaigns from 1952 to 2000. Polit Behav 25: 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell JE (2005) Why Bush won the presidential election of 2004: incumbency, ideology, terrorism, and turnout. Polit Sci Q 120: 219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colomer JM, Puglisi R (2005) cleavages, issues and parties: a critical overview of the literature. Eur Polit Sci 4(4): 502–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klingemann H-D, Volkens A, Bara J, Budge I, McDonald MD (2006) Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Krasa S, Polborn M (2010) The binary policy model. J Econ Theory 145(2): 661–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langer G, Cohen J (2005) Voters and values in the 2004 election. Public Opin Q 69(5): 744–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCombs M, Zhu J-H (1995) Capacity, Diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opin Q 59(4): 495–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Election Pool (2004) Exit poll for ABC-AP-CBS-CNN-Fox News-NBC News. Edison Media Research & Mitofsky International, provided by Voter News Service (VNS). http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
  16. Norpoth H, Sidman A (2007) Mission accomplished: the wartime election of 2004. Polit Behav 29(2): 175–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petrocik JR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. Am J Polit Sci 40(3): 825–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petrocik JR, Benoit WL, Hansen GJ (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Polit Sci Q 118(4): 599–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. RePass DE (1971) Issue salience and party choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(2): 389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riker WH (1993) Agenda formation. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  21. Roemer JE (2001) Political competition: theory and applications. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Stokes DE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. Am Polit Sci Rev 57(2): 368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stroud NJ, Kenski K (2007) From agenda setting to refusal setting: survey nonresponse as a function of media coverage across the 2004 election cycle. Public Opin Q 71(4): 539–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weisberg H, Christenson D (2007) Changing horses in wartime? The 2004 presidential election. Polit Behav 29(2): 279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisberg HF (2005) The US presidential and congressional elections, November 2004. Elect Stud 24(4): 777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wittman D (1983) Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternative theories. Am Polit Sci Rev 77: 142–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wlezien C (2005) On the salience of political issues: the problem with ‘most important problem’. Elect Stud 24(4): 555–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Economic Analysis, Higher Council for Scientific Research (IAE-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Departament d’Economia i EmpresaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSEBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations