IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v10y1998i1p5-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition

Author

Listed:
  • James Adams

Abstract

The standard Downsian spatial model cannot account for two, related, aspects of party behavior in multiparty systems: (1) despite spatial modelers' disequilibrium results, parties' policy programs are relatively stable; (2) parties behave `responsibly,' consistently locating near their own partisans in the policy space, even when an alternative spatial location appears to offer a larger vote share. This paper modifies the Downsian model to take account of two empirical observations derived from behavioral research: (1) voters typically have partisan attachments, which may motivate them to vote for their party even when they prefer the policies of a competitor; (2) partisanship is correlated with voters' policy beliefs. For this model, I show that equilibria are likely to exist in three-party competition. I also show that at equilibrium parties invariably locate near their own partisans in the policy space. Data on the distribution of voter preferences in the 1987 British general election are used to illustrate the nature of multiparty equilibria. My results suggest that the greater the strength of voters' partisan attachments, the greater the likelihood of equilibrium. Furthermore, the results show how parties whose partisans are centrally located in the policy space suffer a strategic disadvantage.

Suggested Citation

  • James Adams, 1998. "Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 5-31, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:10:y:1998:i:1:p:5-31
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692898010001001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692898010001001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692898010001001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. B. Curtis Eaton & Richard G. Lipsey, 1975. "The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Reconsidered: Some New Developments in the Theory of Spatial Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(1), pages 27-49.
    2. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    3. Budge, Ian, 1994. "A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 443-467, October.
    4. Hug, Simon, 1995. "Third Parties in Equilibrium," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 82(1-2), pages 159-180, January.
    5. Page, Benjamin I. & Jones, Calvin C., 1979. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 1071-1089, December.
    6. Thomas R. Palfrey, 1984. "Spatial Equilibrium with Entry," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(1), pages 139-156.
    7. Hermsen, Hanneke & Verbeek, Albert, 1992. "Equilibria in Multi-party Systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 147-165, March.
    8. de PALMA, André & HONG, Gap-Seon & THISSE, Jacques-François, 1988. "Equilibria in multi-party competition under uncertainty," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1988039, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey, 1988. "Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 405-422, June.
    10. Markus, Gregory B. & Converse, Philip E., 1979. "A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 1055-1070, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James F. Adams & Ernest W. Adams, 2000. "The Geometry of Voting Cycles," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 131-153, April.
    2. Buechel, Berno & Roehl, Nils, 2015. "Robust equilibria in location games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(2), pages 505-517.
    3. Dominic Keehan & Dodge Cahan & John McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2022. "Equilibria on a circular market when consumers do not always buy from the closest firm," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 285-306, September.
    4. Sengupta, Abhijit & Sengupta, Kunal, 2008. "A Hotelling-Downs model of electoral competition with the option to quit," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 661-674, March.
    5. Samuel Merrill III & Bernard Grofman, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: II," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 25-48, January.
    6. Jac C. Heckelman & Andrew J. Yates, 2008. "Senate Elections With Independent Candidates," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 31-46, January.
    7. Dodge Cahan & Hongjia H. Chen & Louis Christie & Arkadii Slinko, 2021. "Spatial competition on 2-dimensional markets and networks when consumers don’t always go to the closest firm," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-970, December.
    8. Russell J Dalton, 2017. "Citizens’ representation in the 2009 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 188-211, June.
    9. Zakharov Alexei, 2005. "Candidate location and endogenous valence," EERC Working Paper Series 05-17e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    10. Narwa, Daniel, 2001. "How general should the proximity model be?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 53-74, March.
    11. Wouter van der Brug, 2001. "Perceptions, Opinions and Party Preferences in the Face of a Real World Event," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 53-80, January.
    12. Tsakas, Nikolas & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2018. "Electoral competition with third party entry in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 121-134.
    13. Scott L. Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1991. "Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 115-137, April.
    14. Mudambi, Ram & Navarra, Pietro, 2004. "Electoral strategies in mixed systems of representation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 227-253, March.
    15. Simon Loertscher & Gerd Muehlheusser, 2008. "Dynamic Location Games," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1042, The University of Melbourne.
    16. Irwin L. Morris & George Rabinowitz, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: IV," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 75-88, January.
    17. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    18. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    19. Brusco, Sandro & Roy, Jaideep, 2016. "Cycles in public opinion and the dynamics of stable party systems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 413-430.
    20. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:10:y:1998:i:1:p:5-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.