Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 158, Issue 3–4, pp 465–482 | Cite as

Modeling the effects of changing issue salience in two-party competition

  • Scott L. Feld
  • Samuel MerrillIII
  • Bernard Grofman
Article

Abstract

For a given distribution of voter ideal points, candidates may compete, not only by changing their policy platforms, but also by seeking to persuade voters to place more weight on one of the given dimensions. We do not examine persuasion mechanisms, per se, but, rather, investigate how change of the salience weights can lead to alternation of majorities for the candidates, even though candidate positions remain fixed. Thus, competition over the salience of issue dimensions can, under certain circumstances, be crucial for determining election outcomes. We illustrate potential non-monotonicities in priming effects in terms of the Fourier series decomposition of the distribution of voter preferences, showing that the existence of higher-level harmonics leads to greater uncertainty about election outcomes and about best heresthetic strategies. We then demonstrate the empirical relevance of our results with data on two issue dimensions of political competition in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

Keywords

Heresthetics Priming Issue dimensions Salience Party competition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of portions of this paper were given at the Annual Meetings of the Public Choice Society, in San Antonio, March 2001, and in San Diego, March, 2002, and at the Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Aarhus, Denmark, April 26–28, 2003. This earlier research was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant SBR 97-30578 (to Bernard Grofman and Anthony Marley), Program in Methodology, Measurement and Statistics; more recent work was supported by SSHRCC research grant #410-2007-2153. (co-PIs: Stanley Winer and Stephen Ferris), on which Grofman is an associate investigator, by the Jack W. Peltason (Bren Foundation) Chair, University of California, Irvine, and by the UCI Center for the Study of Democracy. We are indebted to Clover Behrend for library assistance and to Joseph Godfrey for assistance in programming and some of the graphics used in this paper We are indebted to the ICPSR for access to data from the U.S. National Election Studies.

Supplementary material

11127_2012_9952_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (138 kb)
(PDF 138 kB)

References

  1. Ansolabehere, S. D., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: how attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S. D., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: the case of negative advertising and turnout. American Political Science Review, 93(December), 901–909. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budge, I. & Farlie, D. J. (Eds.) (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London and Boston: Allen & Unwin. Google Scholar
  4. Druckman, J. (2004). Priming the vote: campaign effects in a U.S. Senate election. Political Psychology, 25, 577–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Druckman, J., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeir, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1180–1202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Feld, St. L., & Grofman, B. (1988). Majority rule outcomes and the structure of debate in one-issue-at-a-time decision making. Public Choice, 59, 239–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glazer, A., & Grofman, B. (1989). Why representatives are ideologists though voters are not. Public Choice, 61, 29–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grofman, B., Feld, S. L., & Owen, G. (1989). Finagle’s law and the finagle point, a new solution concept for two-candidate competition in spatial voting games. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 348–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hammond, T. H., & Humes, B. D. (1993). ‘What this campaign is all about is…’: a rational choice alternative to the Downsian spatial model of elections. In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation and choice: ‘an economic theory of democracy’ in perspective, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  11. Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  12. Humes, B. D. (1993). Majority rule outcomes and the choice of germaneness rules. Public Choice, 75, 301–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humphreys, M., & Garry, J. (2000). Thinking about salience. Draft originally posted at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mnhumphr/papers1/salience.pdf.
  14. Humphreys, M., & Laver, M. (2007). Spatial models, cognitive metrics, and majority voting equilibria. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Government, Columbia University. Google Scholar
  15. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  16. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  18. Krosnick, J., & Kinder, D. (1990). Altering the foundations for support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy defended. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manin, B. (1997). Principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLean, I. (2002). William H. Riker and the invention of heresthetics. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 535–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: campaign strategy, implicit messages and the norm of equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (1997). Modeling large electorates with Fourier series, with applications to Nash equilibria in proximity and directional models of spatial competition. Social Choice and Welfare, 14, 545–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser, S., Patty, J. W., & Penn, E. (2009). The structure of heresthetical power. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 21(2), 139–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Owen, G. (1975). Evaluation of a presidential election game. American Political Science Review, 69, 947–953. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patty, J. W. (2007). Incommensurability and issue voting. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19(2), 115–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petrocik, J. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plott, C. R. (1967). A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. American Economic Review, 57, 787–806. Google Scholar
  30. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: a political-economic history of roll call voting. New York and London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
  32. Riker, W. H. (1984). The heresthetics of constitution making: the presidency in 1787. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Riker, W. H. (with the posthumous assistance of Calvert, R. L., Mueller, J. E. and Wilson, R. K.) (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Robertson, D. (1976). A theory of party competition. London: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
  36. Salvanto, A. M. (2000). Direct democracy, voter strategy and the long American ballot. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine. Google Scholar
  37. Schattschneider, E. E. (1980). The semisovereign people: a realist’s view of democracy in America (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  38. Schofield, N. (2006). Architects of political change. New York and London: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2006). From the corn laws to free trade: interests, ideas, and institutions in historical perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Sigelman, L., Lau, R., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 851–875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 49–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taagepera, R., & Grofman, B. (1985). Rethinking duverger’s law: predicting the effective number of parties in plurality and PR systems—parties minus issues equals one. European Journal of Political Research, 13, 341–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott L. Feld
    • 1
  • Samuel MerrillIII
    • 2
  • Bernard Grofman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWilkes UniversityOlympiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and Institute for Mathematical Behavioral ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations