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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abramson PR, Aldrich JH, Rohde DW (2005) The 2004 presidential election: the emergence of a permanent majority?. Polit Sci Q 120(1): 33–57
Abramson PR, Aldrich JH, Rohde DW, Rickershauser J, Rohde DW (2007) Fear in the voting booth: the 2004 presidential election. Polit Behav 29(2): 197–220
Amorós P, Puy SM (2007) Dialogue or issue divergence in the political campaign? CORE Discussion paper 2007/84
Amorós P, Puy SM (2010) Indicators of electoral victory. Public Choice 144: 239–251
Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (2009) Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
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 41–80
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, Oxford
Burden BC, Sanberg JNR (2003) Budget rhetoric in presidential campaigns from 1952 to 2000. Polit Behav 25: 97–118
Campbell JE (2005) Why Bush won the presidential election of 2004: incumbency, ideology, terrorism, and turnout. Polit Sci Q 120: 219–241
Colomer JM, Puglisi R (2005) cleavages, issues and parties: a critical overview of the literature. Eur Polit Sci 4(4): 502–520
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 York
Krasa S, Polborn M (2010) The binary policy model. J Econ Theory 145(2): 661–688
Langer G, Cohen J (2005) Voters and values in the 2004 election. Public Opin Q 69(5): 744–759
McCombs M, Zhu J-H (1995) Capacity, Diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opin Q 59(4): 495–525
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
Norpoth H, Sidman A (2007) Mission accomplished: the wartime election of 2004. Polit Behav 29(2): 175–195
Petrocik JR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. Am J Polit Sci 40(3): 825–850
Petrocik JR, Benoit WL, Hansen GJ (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Polit Sci Q 118(4): 599–626
RePass DE (1971) Issue salience and party choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(2): 389–400
Riker WH (1993) Agenda formation. University of Michigan Press, Michigan
Roemer JE (2001) Political competition: theory and applications. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Stokes DE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. Am Polit Sci Rev 57(2): 368–377
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): 539–559
Weisberg H, Christenson D (2007) Changing horses in wartime? The 2004 presidential election. Polit Behav 29(2): 279–304
Weisberg HF (2005) The US presidential and congressional elections, November 2004. Elect Stud 24(4): 777–784
Wittman D (1983) Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternative theories. Am Polit Sci Rev 77: 142–157
Wlezien C (2005) On the salience of political issues: the problem with ‘most important problem’. Elect Stud 24(4): 555–579
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
J. M. Colomer acknowledges the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (SEJ2006-10974).
H. Llavador acknowledges the support of the Barcelona GSE, of the Government of Catalonia, and of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Innovation (SEJ2006-09993/ECO, SEJ2006-10974 and ECO2009-08820).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Colomer, J.M., Llavador, H. An agenda-setting model of electoral competition. SERIEs 3, 73–93 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-011-0056-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-011-0056-5