Advertisement

Eine empirische Schätzmethode für Valenz-Issues auf der Basis der Kandidatenbeurteilung am Beispiel der Konstanzer Oberbürgermeisterwahl 2012

  • Susumu Shikano
  • Simon Munzert
  • Thomas Schübel
  • Michael Herrmann
  • Peter Selb
Chapter
Part of the Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie book series (JAHAEN, volume 8)

Zusammenfassung

Bei der Entwicklung der räumlichen Modelle des Parteienwettbewerbs spielt die Valenz eine wichtige Rolle. Trotz der theoretischen Relevanz bleibt die Mess- und Schätzmethode der Valenz unterentwickelt. Angesichts dieser Forschungslücke schlägt dieser Beitrag ein statistisches Modell vor, das die gleichzeitige Schätzung der Kandidatenpositionen und der Valenz ermöglicht. Ein wichtiger Vorzug dieses Modells liegt darin, dass man nur die Kandidatenbeurteilungen per Skalometer benötigt, der in den meisten Umfragedaten verfügbar ist. Dieses Modell wird auf Daten angewendet, die in Rahmen der Konstanzer Oberbürgermeisterwahl 2012 erhoben wurden.

Literatur

  1. Adams, James & Samuel Merrill III (2008): Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary, American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen & James Snyder Jr. (2000): Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models, Public Choice 103(3/4): 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, David (1989): Service-induced campaign contributions and the electoral equilibrium, Quarterly Journal of Economics 104(1): 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, Duncan (1948): On the rationale of group decision-making, Journal of Political Economy 56: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady, Henry E. (1990): Traits versus issues: Factor versus ideal-point analysis of candidate thermometer ratings, Political Analysis 2(1): 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, Ronald J. & Joel A. Lieske (1985): Does time of voting affect exit poll results? Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cahoon, Lawrence (1975): Locating a Set of Points Using Range Information only. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  8. Cahoon, Lawrence, Melvin Hinich & Peter Ordeshook (1978): A statistical multidimensional scaling method based on the spatial theory of voting, in: Wang, Peter C. (Hrdg.): Graphical Representation of Multivariate Data (243–278), New York und andere: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Calvert, Randall L. (1985): Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: Candidate motivations, uncertainty and convergence, American Journal of Political Science 29: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrillo, Juan & Micael Castanheira (2008): Information and strategic political polarisation, The Economic Journal 118: 845–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coombs, Clyde H. (1964): A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Dix, Manfred & Rudy Santore (2002): Candidate ability and platform choice, Economics Letters 76(2): 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downs, Anthony (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  14. Enelow, James & Melvin Hinich (1982): Nonspatial candidate characteristics and electoral competition, Journal of Politics 44(1): 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erikson, Robert & Thomas Palfrey (2000): Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data, The American Political Science Review 94(3): 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, Andrew & Jennifer Hill (2007): Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gouret, Fabian, Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Rossignol (2011): An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition, Social Choice and Welfare 37(2): 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grofman, Bernard (1985): The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting, The Journal of Politics 47(1): 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groseclose, Tim (2001): A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage, American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrmann, Michael (2008): Moderat bevorzugt, extrem gewählt. Zum Zusammenhang von Präferenz und Wahlentscheidung in räumlichen Modellen sachfragenorientierten Wählens, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49(1): 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollard, Guillaume & Stéphane Rossignol (2008): An alternative approach to valence advantage in spatial competition, Journal of Public Economic Theory 10(3): 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hotelling, Harold (1929): Stability in competition, The Economic Journal 39: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jessee, Stephen (2010): Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election, The Journal of Politics 72(2): 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meirowitz, Adam (2008): Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance, The Journal of Politics 70(3): 681–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sahuguet, Nicolas & Nicola Persico (2006): Campaign spending regulation in a model of redistributive politics, Economic Theory 28(1): 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schofield, Norman & Itai Sened (2005): Multiparty competition in Israel, 1988–96, British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 635–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schofield, Norman & Alexei Zakharov (2010): A stochastic model of the 2007 Russian Duma election, Public Choice 142(1–2): 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schofield, Norman, Christopher Claasen, Ugur Ozdemir & Alexei Zakharov (2011a): Estimating the effects of activists in two-party and multi-party systems: Comparing the United States and Israel, Social Choice and Welfare 36(3–4): 483–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schofield, Norman, Maria Gallego, Ugur Ozdemir & Alexei Zakharov (2011b): Competition for popular support: a valence model of elections in Turkey, Social Choice and Welfare 36(3): 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Selb, Peter, Michael Herrmann, Simon Munzert, Thomas Schübel & Susumu Shikano (2013): Forecasting runoff elections using candidate evaluations from first round exit polls, International Journal of Forecasting 29: 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shikano, Susumu (2004): On feeling thermometer scores and construction of a party competition space. Konferenzpapier (MPSA, Chicago).Google Scholar
  32. Smithies, Arthur (1941): Optimum location in spatial competition, Journal of Political Economy 49(3): 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stokes, Donald E. (1963): Spatial models of party competition, American Political Science Review 57(2): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stone, Walter & Elizabeth Simas (2010): Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. House elections, American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wittman, Donald (1983): Candidate motivation: A synthesis of alternative theories, American Political Science Review 77: 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zakharov, Alexei (2009): A model of candidate location with endogenous valence, Public Choice 138(3): 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susumu Shikano
    • 1
  • Simon Munzert
    • 2
  • Thomas Schübel
    • 2
  • Michael Herrmann
    • 1
  • Peter Selb
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Methoden der empirischen Politik- und VerwaltungsforschungKonstanzDeutschland
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für UmfrageforschungKonstanzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations