IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/feam04/700.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Influence of Voters' Preferences on the Stable Parliamentary Seat Share

Author

Listed:
  • Taeko Endo

Abstract

In this paper, we show that the dynamics of a parliament seat share using an adoptive process modeled by urn scheme. In particular, we clarify the condition under which one dominant party or co-existence arises, when voters recognize the political effectiveness as important. One of the important factors for voters to decide their voting is how a political party's proposal is close to their ideal, which reflects their religion, social class, age and so on. There exists another important factor to choose a party. In the literature it is often supposed that the winning party has the power to implement any proposal with probability 1. However, voters have room to consider the likelihood that a party will implement its proposal, i.e., the political effectiveness. Some of voters may be more in favor of the policy that was announced by the defeated party; others, on the contrary, may be in favor of the winning party's proposal. The actions taken by the government are influenced by voters. The influence of voters in favor of a proposal will become bigger if the proportion of seats obtained by the corresponding party. Clearly a party winning 51% of the seats will have more difficulty to carry out its proposal than one winning 80% of the seats. As show in Duverger(1967), voters for small parties will see that their vote is being `wasted' and they will switch to supporting a major party. We consider the case where voters pay attention to two points to choose a party; the closeness between a party's ideology and own ideal, and the political effectiveness. Here, we consider the simple society where there are two parties, say, X and Y, and three type voters, say, x, y, and z. Voter x receives positive benefit from X and negative one from Y. She always votes for party X tough X has any low seat share. Conversely, voter y obtains negative benefit from X and positive one from Y. He votes for party Y irrespective of the seat share of Y. Voter z gets the same benefits from both parties. Party X and Y are indifferent for voter z. Voter z votes for a party with higher seat share. Voter x and y count the closeness to a party strongly and they ignore the political effectiveness. Voter x has the low critical seat share to vote for party X and voter y has the high critical seat share to vote for X. Voter z pays attention to the political effectiveness. He has the moderate critical seat share to vote for party X. We regard a voter's critical seat share as a voter's preference. For purposes of comparison we consider two shapes of distribution of voters' preferences, bimodal and single-peaked. If voters' preferences are distributed as bimodal, each party has strong supporters who always vote for the support party and the proportion of voters who care the political effectiveness as important is small. As each party has strong supports potentially even if it leaves what initial state, in progress of time, two seat shares become equivalent, i.e., the long term co-existence is realized in the equilibrium. Conversely, if voters' preferences are distributed as single-peaked, most voters are interested in the political effectiveness. Then, a party with higher seat share is more attractive for voters and it gains an even higher seat share. After all, a party with a high initial seat share comes into power, i.e., the lock-in into one of political party is realized. The dynamics treated in this paper is the generalized urn process discussed in Hill et al. (1980), Arthur et al. (1983), and Dosi et al. (1994). As Dosi et al. (1994) mentioned, by specifying the function which characterizes an agent's behavior, it is possible to analyze the stochastic evolution of the share. We define the voters' behavioral patterns and demonstrate how the global forces ruling the dynamics of whole populations can be derived from the individual behavior of voters

Suggested Citation

  • Taeko Endo, 2004. "An Influence of Voters' Preferences on the Stable Parliamentary Seat Share," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 700, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:feam04:700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esFEAM04/up.19841.1080716493.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Stigler, 1972. "Economic competition and political competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 91-106, September.
    2. G. Dosi & Y. Kaniovski, 2000. "On "Badly Behaved" Dynamics: Some Applications of Generalized urn Schemes to Technological and Economic Change," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 13, pages 379-409, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni & Ermoliev, Yuri & Kaniovski, Yuri, 1994. "Generalized urn schemes and technological dynamics," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-19, January.
    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. Cherkashin, Dmitriy & Farmer, J. Doyne & Lloyd, Seth, 2009. "The reality game," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1091-1105, May.
      • Dmitriy Cherkashin & J. Doyne Farmer & Seth Lloyd, 2009. "The Reality Game," Papers 0902.0100, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2009.
    2. Carolina Castaldi & Giovanni Dosi, 2003. "The Grip of History and the Scope for Novelty: Some Results and Open Questions on Path Dependence in Economic Processes," LEM Papers Series 2003/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. G. Dosi, 2012. "Economic Coordination and Dynamics: Some Elements of an Alternative “Evolutionary” Paradigm," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 12.
    4. Jérome VICENTE (GRES-LEREPS), 2003. "From interaction economics to economic geography : theories and evidences (In French)," Cahiers du GRES (2002-2009) 2003-02, Groupement de Recherches Economiques et Sociales.
    5. Francesco Feri & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez, 2013. "Coordination in evolving networks with endogenous decay," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 955-1000, November.
    6. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    8. Max Keilbach, 1999. "Network Externalities and the Path Dependence of Markets: Will Bill Gates Make It?," Computing in Economics and Finance 1999 711, Society for Computational Economics.
    9. Flåm, Sjur Didrik & Gaasland, Ivar & Vårdal, Erling, 2006. "On Stabilizing or Deregulating Food Prices," Working Papers in Economics 08/06, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    10. Giovanni Dosi & Alessio Moneta & Elena Stepanova, 2019. "Dynamic increasing returns and innovation diffusion: bringing Polya Urn processes to the empirical data," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 461-478, April.
    11. Auke Hoekstra & Maarten Steinbuch & Geert Verbong, 2017. "Creating Agent-Based Energy Transition Management Models That Can Uncover Profitable Pathways to Climate Change Mitigation," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-23, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Narduzzo, Alessandro & Warglien, Massimo, 1996. "Learning from the Experience of Others: An Experiment on Information Contagion," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(1), pages 113-126.
    14. Monika Köppl-Turyna, 2016. "Opportunistic politicians and fiscal outcomes: the curious case of Vorarlberg," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 177-216, September.
    15. Yogesh Uppal, 2011. "Does legislative turnover adversely affect state expenditure policy? Evidence from Indian state elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 189-207, April.
    16. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2011. "Competing on Good Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 79-99, February.
    17. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 1999. "The size and scope of government:: Comparative politics with rational politicians," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 699-735, April.
    18. Michael McKee, 1988. "Political competition and the Roman Catholic schools: Ontario, Canada," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 57-67, January.
    19. Sivadasan, Jagadeesh & Xu, Wenjian, 2021. "Missing women in India: Gender-specific effects of early-life rainfall shocks," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. Jean-Michel Dalle, 1995. "Dynamiques d'adoption, coordination et diversité : la diffusion des standards technologiques," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 46(4), pages 1081-1098.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political effectiveness; Voter's preference; Urn process;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecm:feam04:700. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.