Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote
- 1 December 1990
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 84 (4) , 1103-1126
- https://doi.org/10.2307/1963255
Abstract
Most applications of spatial modeling to the problem of electoral competition are pessimistic regarding the prospects for candidate equilibrium in more than one policy dimension. Probabilistic models of the vote, however, increase the likelihood of equilibrium. We expand the probabilistic model to include measured nonissue variables, thereby representing the general multivariate model of behavioral research. For this model we offer a general candidate equilibrium solution and illustrate with some simulations based on 1988 National Election Study data. The more complicated one's model of voters' motivations, the greater appears to be the chance of locating a candidate equilibrium position in policy space.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral ChoiceAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1988
- Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social ChoiceAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1986
- Elections and income redistributionPublic Choice, 1986
- The "Uncorrelated Errors" Approach to the Problem of Causal FeedbackThe Journal of Politics, 1982
- A New Solution Set for Tournaments and Majority Voting: Further Graph- Theoretical Approaches to the Theory of VotingAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1980
- Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the VoteAmerican Political Science Review, 1979
- Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential VotesAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1975
- Variability in Electoral Behavior: Longitudinal Perspectives from Causal ModelingAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1975
- A Theory of Electoral Equilibrium: A Spatial Analysis Based on the Theory of GamesThe Journal of Politics, 1973
- Discerning a Causal Pattern among Data on Voting BehaviorAmerican Political Science Review, 1966