Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 178, Issue 1–2, pp 115–151 | Cite as

Candidate competition and voter learning in the 2000–2012 US presidential primaries

  • George DeltasEmail author
  • Mattias K. Polborn
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

When candidates in primary elections are ideologically differentiated (e.g., conservatives and moderates in the Republican Party), then candidates with similar positions affect each others’ vote shares more strongly than candidates with different ideological positions. We measure this effect in US presidential primaries and show that it is of first-order importance. We also show that voters’ beliefs about the candidates harden over the course of the primary, as manifested in the variability of candidate vote shares. We discuss models of sequential voting that cannot yield that pattern of results, and propose an explanation based on a model with horizontally and vertically differentiated candidates and incompletely informed voters. Consistent with the predictions of this model, we also show that, in more conservative states, low-quality conservative candidates do better relative to high-quality conservatives, and vice versa.

Keywords

Voting Primary elections Simultaneous versus sequential elections 

JEL Classification

D72 D60 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge useful comments by Jeff Milyo, Jungmo Yoon, and seminar participants at Hanyang University, the University of Cyprus, University of Missouri, the University of Pireus, SUNY Stony Brook, and at the American Economic Association Annual Meetings.

Supplementary material

11127_2018_620_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (163 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 162 KB)

References

  1. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2008). Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, L. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. The American Political Science Review, 79(3), 804–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (1987). Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Callander, S. (2007). Bandwagons and momentum in sequential voting. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 653–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekel, E., & Piccione, M. (2000). Sequential voting procedures in symmetric binary elections. Journal of Political Economy, 108(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deltas, G., Herrera, H., & Polborn, M. K. (2016). Learning and coordination in the presidential primary system. Review of Economic Studies, 83(4), 1544–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group Interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kenny, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1994). The psychology of political momentum. Political Research Quarterly, 47(4), 923–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klumpp, T., & Polborn, M. K. (2006). Primaries and the New Hampshire effect. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1073–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knight, B., & Hummel, P. (2015). Sequential or simultaneous elections? An empirical welfare analysis. International Economic Review, 56, 851–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knight, B., & Schiff, N. (2010). Momentum and social learning in presidential primaries. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 1110–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. K. (2010). The binary policy model. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(2), 661–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwabe, R. (2015). Super Tuesday: Campaign finance and the dynamics of sequential elections. Social Choice and Welfare, 44(4), 927–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Serra, G. (2011). Why primaries? The party’s tradeoff between policy and valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(3), 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Department of Political ScienceVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations