IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iek/wpaper/0907.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Voting and Multinomial Choice In US Presidential Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Myoung-jae Lee

    (Department of Economics, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea)

  • Sung-jin Kang

    (Department of Economics, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea)

Abstract

Ross Perot was a relatively viable third party candidate in the 1992 US presidential election, but he was not any more in the 1996 election. This provides a good opportunity to analyze strategic voting behavior?voting for a candidate not most preferred by the voter?in the US presidential elections with panel data drawn from NES (National Election Studies). First, the 1992 election is analyzed with multinomial choice estimators. Second, using the estimates, each individual¡¯s choice is predicted for the 1996 election. Third, those who were predicted to vote for Perot in 1996 but did not are identified as strategic voters and their profile is drawn. In addition to the main task of analyzing the strategic voting behavior, this paper does two additional tasks. First, analyzing the 1992 data with multinomial choice estimators, t is found that the following variables mattered significantly for the US presidential election: respondent and candidate ideology, personal finance, age, education, income, sex, abortion stance, health insurance policy, and welfare program policy. Second, critical mistakes in the literature in applying multinomial probit to election data are pointed.

Suggested Citation

  • Myoung-jae Lee & Sung-jin Kang, 2009. "Strategic Voting and Multinomial Choice In US Presidential Elections," Discussion Paper Series 0907, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    • Handle: RePEc:iek:wpaper:0907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.korea.ac.kr/~ri/WorkingPapers/w0907.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. McFadden, Daniel, 1989. "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 995-1026, September.
    4. Alvarez, R. Michael & Nagler, Jonathan, 2000. "A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 57-75, January.
    5. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
    6. Lee, Myoung-jae & Kim, Young-sook, 2007. "Multinomial choice and nonparametric average derivatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 63-81, January.
    7. Galbraith, John W. & Rae, Nicol C., 1989. "A Test of the Importance of Tactical Voting: Great Britain, 1987," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 126-136, January.
    8. Johnston, R. J. & Pattie, C. J., 1991. "Tactical Voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: An Alternative Approach," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 95-108, January.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, September.
    11. Niemi, Richard G. & Written, Guy & Franklin, Mark N., 1992. "Constituency Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Tactical Voting in the 1987 British General Election," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 229-240, April.
    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. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    2. Artabe, Alaitz & Gardeazabal, Javier, 2014. "Strategic Votes and Sincere Counterfactuals," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 243-257, April.
    3. Ricardo A. Daziano & Martin Achtnicht, 2014. "Forecasting Adoption of Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles Using Bayes Estimates of a Multinomial Probit Model and the GHK Simulator," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 671-683, November.
    4. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    5. St'ephane Dupraz & Daniel Muller & Lionel Page, 2013. "Tactical Voting and Voter's Sophistication in British Elections," QuBE Working Papers 011, QUT Business School.
    6. Lee, Myoung-jae & Kim, Young-sook, 2007. "Multinomial choice and nonparametric average derivatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 63-81, January.
    7. HeeMin Kim & Tatiana Kostadinova, 2011. "Does Tactical Voting Matter? The Political Impact of Tactical Voting in Canadian Elections," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 14(1), pages 49-72, March.
    8. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    9. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    10. Zhang, Xiao & Boscardin, W. John & Belin, Thomas R., 2008. "Bayesian analysis of multivariate nominal measures using multivariate multinomial probit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 3697-3708, March.
    11. Matthew Gentzkow, 2006. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarities: Online Newspapers," NBER Working Papers 12562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Barrios, Javier A., 2004. "Generalized sample selection bias correction under RUM," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-132, October.
    13. Useche, Pilar & Barham, Bradford & Foltz, Jeremy, 2006. "A Trait Specific Model of GM Crop Adoption by Minnesota and Wisconsin Corn Farmers," Working Papers 201525, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Food System Research Group.
    14. Kaplan, Sigal & Shiftan, Yoram & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2012. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 291-304.
    15. Siddhartha Chib & Edward Greenberg & Yuxin Chen, 1998. "MCMC Methods for Fitting and Comparing Multinomial Response Models," Econometrics 9802001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 May 1998.
    16. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    17. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    18. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    19. Paul Gertler & Roland Sturm & Bruce Davidson, 1994. "Information and the Demand for Supplemental Medicare Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & George Philippidis & Fiorenza Spalatro, 2005. "Product-country images and preference heterogeneity for Mediterranean food products: A discrete choice framework," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 329-349.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    strategic voting; presidential election; multinomial logit; multinomial probit;
    All these keywords.

    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:iek:wpaper:0907. 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: Kim, Jisoo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ierkukr.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.