Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
We apply the iterative algorithm by Merrill and Adams (Political Analysis 9:347–361, 2001) to compute the optimal positions of vote-maximizing parties along a one-dimensional space for a large number of elections. This allows us to systematically evaluate factors that push parties toward more centrifugal locations in equilibrium. Our findings largely corroborate expectations suggested by the theoretical literature, albeit with one notable exception: the relative size of a partisan constituency reduces, rather than enhances, the likelihood of a party having an extreme optimal position. We then compare derived equilibrium positions with actual party positions, with the aim of understanding the nature of electoral incentives and offering insights about party-system competition. In particular, we show that the age of a party, the party family to which it belongs, post-election expectations, and internal rules for candidate and leader selection, are all factors that increase the probability of a party approaching the position predicted by pure vote-maximizing considerations.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Adams, J. (1999). Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 100, 103–122. CrossRef
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L., & Glasgow, G. (2004). Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results? British Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 586–610. CrossRef
Adams, J., Ezrow, L., Merrill, S., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2013). Does collective responsibility for performance alter party strategies? Policy-seeking parties in proportional systems. British Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 1–23. CrossRef
Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2007). Policy seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 539–558. CrossRef
Adams, J., Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Adams, J., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009). Policy adjustment in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamic of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 825–846. CrossRef
Aldrich, J. (1983). A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 974–990. CrossRef
Alvarez, M. R., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1349–1363. CrossRef
Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
Budge, I. (1994). A new theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 443–467. CrossRef
Budge, I., Klingemann, H. D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., & Tanenbaum, E. (2001). Mapping policy preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calvo, E., & Hellwig, T. (2011). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under different electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 27–41. CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2012). Bounded oligarchy: How and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies, 31, 689–701. CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2013). Gamson rule not for all: Patterns of portfolio allocation among Italian party factions. European Journal of Political Research, doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12020.
Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 903–935. CrossRef
Curini, L., & Hino, A. (2012). Missing links in party-system polarization: How institutions and voters matter. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 460–473. CrossRef
Curini, L., & Iacus, S. M. (2012). Nopp. An R-package to estimate Nash optimal party positions. R package version 1.0.0. http://www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nopp/vignettes/nopp.pdf.
Dalton, R. (2010). Left-right orientations, context, and voting choices. In R. Russell & C. J. Anderson (Eds.), Citizens, context and choice: How context shapes citizens’ electoral choices (pp. 103–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Dow, J. K. (2011). Party system compactness in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 341–361. CrossRef
Dow, J. K., & Endersby, J. W. (2004). A comparison of conditional logit and multinomial probit models in multiparty elections. Electoral Studies, 23, 107–122. CrossRef
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Ennser, L. (2012). The homogeneity of West European party families: The radical right in comparative perspective. Party Politics, 18(2), 151–171. CrossRef
Ezrow, L. (2008). Parties’ policy programs and the dog that didn’t bark. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 479–497. CrossRef
Gallagher, M., & Mitchell, P. (2008). The politics of electoral systems. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Golder, S. N. (2006). The logic of pre-electoral coalition formation. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Green, J. (2007). When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies, 55(3), 629–655. CrossRef
Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886. CrossRef
Katz, R. S. (2001). The problem of candidate selection and models of party democracy. Party Politics, 7(3), 277–296. CrossRef
Kedar, O. (2005). When Moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 185–199. CrossRef
Laver, M., & Sergenti, E. (2012). Party competition: An agent-based model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in 36 countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Lin, T. M., Enelow, J. M., & Dorussen, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 98, 59–82. CrossRef
Mair, P., & Mudde, C. (1998). The party family and its study. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 211–229. CrossRef
McDonald, M., & Budge, I. (2005). Elections, parties, and democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Merrill, S., & Adams, J. (2001). Computing Nash equilibria in probabilistic, multiparty spatial models with nonpolicy components. Political Analysis, 9, 347–361. CrossRef
Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Meyer, T. M. (2012). Dropping the unitary actor assumption: the impact of intra-party delegation on coalition governance. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24, 485–506. CrossRef
Plümper, T., & Martin, C. W. (2008). Multi-party competition: A computational model with abstention and memory. Electoral Studies, 27, 424–441. CrossRef
Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93–121. CrossRef
Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty Democracy: Parties, elections and legislative politics in multiparty systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Schumacher, G., de Vries, C. E., & Vis, B. (2013). Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 464–477. CrossRef
Spies, D. C., & Kaiser, A. (2012). Does the mode of candidate selection affect the representativeness of parties? Party Politics,. doi: 10.1177/1354068811436066.
von Beyme, K. (1985). Political parties in Western democracies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Waller, M., & Fennema, M. (1988). Communist parties in Western Europe: Decline or adaption?. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ware, A. (1996). Political parties and party systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warwick, P. V. (2004). Proximity, directionality, and the riddle of relative party extremeness. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(3), 263–287. CrossRef
- Explaining party ideological stances
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia