No Polarization in Spite of Primaries: A Median Voter Theorem with Competitive Nominations

Part of the Studies in Political Economy book series (POEC)

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that primaries induce candidates to adopt extremist positions. However the empirical evidence is mixed, so a theoretical investigation is warranted. This chapter develops a general model introducing the fundamental elements of primary elections in the well-known spatial voting model by Downs (An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1957). In spite of significant incentives for candidates to diverge, I find the surprising result that they will all converge to the median voter’s ideal point. The result in this paper suggests that primaries are not sufficient to create polarization by themselves. Rather, for candidates to diverge from the center, other complementary features must be present. An implication is that previous formal results in the literature predicting that primaries lead to polarization probably contain other factors that must be interacting with primaries. Future research should endeavor to disentangle these factors.

References

  1. Abjorensen, N., Horiuchi, Y., & Sato, M. (2012). Decomposition of valence and paradox of primary election. Crawford School Research Paper 15.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2008). Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, J., & Merrill III, S. (2014). Candidates’ policy strategies in primary elections: does strategic voting by the primary electorate matter? Public Choice, 160(1–2), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amorós, G. P., Martínez, R., & Socorro Puy Segura, M. (2013) The closed primaries versus the top-two primary. Working Paper, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Economía. Accessed 13–19 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
  5. Aragón, F. M. (2013). Political parties, candidate selection, and quality of government. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 13(2), 783–810.Google Scholar
  6. Aragón, F. M. (2014). Why do parties use primaries?: political selection versus candidate incentives. Public Choice, 160(1–2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldez, L. (2008). Cuotas versus primarias: la nominación de candidatas mujeres en México. Mujer y política. El impacto de las cuotas de género en América Latina (pp. 157–177). Chile: IDEA/FLACSO/Catalonia.Google Scholar
  8. Bruhn, K. (2013). Electing extremists? Party primaries and legislative candidates in Mexico. Comparative Politics, 45(4), 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruhn, K. (2014). Choosing how to choose: from democratic primaries to unholy alliances in Mexico’s gubernatorial elections. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 30(1), 212–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buisseret, P., & Wantchekon, L. (2014). Communicating and investing in policy expertise: A case for primaries. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  11. Burden, B. C. (2001). The polarizing effects of congressional primaries. In P. F. Galderisi, M. Lyons, & M. Ezra (Eds.), Congressional primaries in the politics of representation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Burden, B. (2004). Candidate positioning in US congressional elections. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calvert, R. L. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carey, J. M., Polga-Hecimovich, J. (2006). Primary elections and candidate strength in latin America. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casas, A. (2013). Partisan politics: parties, primaries and elections. UC3M Working Papers. Economics 13–15. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Economía. Accessed 07 July 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Castanheira, M., Crutzen, B. S.Y., Sahuguet, N. (2010). Party organization and electoral competition. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 26(2), 212–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crutzen, B. S. Y (2013). Keeping politicians on their toes: Does the way parties select candidates matter? EPSA 2013 Annual General Conference, Paper 231.Google Scholar
  18. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Evrenk, H., Lambie-Hanson, T., & Xu, Y. (2013). Party-bosses vs. party-primaries: Quality of legislature under different selectorates. European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 168–182.Google Scholar
  20. Field, B. N., & Siavelis, P. M. (2009). The determinants of candidate selection procedures in new democracies: Evidence from spain (1977–1982) and Chile (1989–2005). Estudio/Working Paper 109/2009, Departamento de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  21. Folke, O., Persson, T., & Rickne, J. (2013). Preferential voting and the selection of party leaders: Evidence from Sweden. Unpublished Manuscript. Stockholm, Sweden: Institute for International Economics Studies, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, E. R., & Morton, R. B. (1998). Primary election systems and representation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 14(2), 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gherghina, S. (2013). One-shot party primaries: the case of the romanian social democrats. Politics, 33, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinojosa, M. (2012). Selecting women, electing women: Political representation and candidate selection in latin America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr., Ansolabehere, S. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2010). Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr., & Ting, M. M. (2009). Distributive politics with primaries. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1467–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M., & Ting, M. M. (2013). Primary elections and the provision of public goods. Unpublished Manuscript. New York City, USA: Department of Economics, New York University.Google Scholar
  28. Hortala-Vallve, R., & Mueller, H. (2009). Primaries: The unifying force. Unpublished Manuscript. London, UK: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  29. Hummel, P. (2013). Candidate strategies in primaries and general elections with candidates of heterogeneous quality. Games and Economic Behavior, 78, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ichino, N., & Nathan, N. L. (2012). Primaries on demand? Intra-party politics and nominations in ghana. British Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 769–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ichino, N., & Nathan, N. L. (2013). Do primaries improve electoral performance? Evidence from ghana. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Indriðason, I. H., & Sigurjónsdóttir, Á. J. (2014). Girls against boys: Primaries in a proportional representation system. Representation, 50(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson, M. O., Mathevet, L., & Mattes, K. (2007). Nomination processes and policy outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, M. (2012). Presidentialism and legislatures. In P. Kingstone & D. Yashar (Eds.), Routledge handbook of latin American politics (pp. 21–32). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Kselman, D. (2014). Median activists or median voters, the contingent impact of primary elections. Unpublished Manuscript. Madrid, Spain: IE Business School.Google Scholar
  36. Kemahlioglu, O., Weitz-Shapiro, R., & Hirano, S. (2009). Why primaries in latin American presidential elections? Journal of Politics, 71(1), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morton, R. B. (2006). Analyzing elections: New institutionalism in American politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Mutlu-Eren, H. (2013). (De)Selection of prime ministers by party members. Unpublished Manuscript. London, UK: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  39. Peress, M. (2013). Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the US house of representatives. Public Choice, 156(1–2), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Padró i Miquel, G., & Snowberg, E. (2012). The lesser evil: Executive accountability with partisan supporters. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(1), 19–45.Google Scholar
  41. Schumer, C. E. (2014). End partisan primaries, save america: adopt the open primary. The New York Times, Opinion Pages, 21 July 2014.Google Scholar
  42. Serra, G. (2011). Why primaries? The party’s tradeoff between policy and valence. The Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serra, G. (2013). When will incumbents avoid a primary challenge? Aggregation of partial information about candidates’ valence. In N. Schofield, G. Caballero, & D. Kselman (Eds.), Advances in political economy: Institutions, modelling and empirical analysis (pp. 217–248). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snyder, Jr., J. M., & Ting, M. M. (2011). Electoral selection with parties and primaries. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 782–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittman, D. (1973). Parties as utility maximizers. American Political Science Review, 67, 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zudenkova, G. (2012). A rationale for intra-party democracy. Unpublished Manuscript. Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany: University of Mannheim.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceCenter for Economics Research and Teaching (CIDE)Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations