Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Studies in Choice and Welfare ((WELFARE))

Summary

This article uses the notion of a “Local Nash Equilibrium” (LNE) to model a vote maximizing political game that incorporates valence (the electorally perceived quality of the political leaders). Formal stochastic voting models without valence typically conclude that all political agents (parties or candidates) will converge towards the electoral mean (the origin of the policy space). The main theorem presented here obtains the necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of the “mean voter theorem” when valence is involved. Since a pure strategy Nash equilibrium (PNE), if it exists, must be a LNE the failure of the necessary condition for an LNE at the origin also implies that PNE cannot be at the origin. To further account for the non-convergent location of parties, the model is extended to include activist valence (the effect on party popularity due to the efforts of activist groups). These results suggest that it is very unlikely that Local Nash equilibria will be located at the electoral center. The theoretical conclusions appear to be borne out by empirical evidence from a number of countries. Genericity arguments demonstrate that LNE will exist for almost all parameters, when the policy space is compact, convex, without any restriction on the variance of the voter ideal points or on the party valence functions.

This article is based on research supported by NSF grant SES 0241732. I would also like to acknowledge the debt that I owe to Jeff Banks, for inspiration and motivation in my attempt to outline an equilibrium theory of politics. I am very grateful to Lexi Shankster for preparing the figures, and to Ben Klemens for his help in dealing with Scientific Word. John Duggan very kindly went through earlier versions of the paper and pointed out problems with the proof of the Theorem. Gaetano Antinolfi showed me how to use Mathematica to check some calculations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. (1983) A spatial model with party activists: implications for electoral dynamics. Public Choice, 41: 63–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aldrich, J. (1983) A Downsian spatial model with party activists. American Political Science Review, 77: 974–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aldrich, J. and M. McGinnis (1989) A model of party constraints on optimal candidate positions. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 42: 437–450.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvarez, M. R. and J. Nagler (1998) When politics and models collide: estimating models of multicandidate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42: 55–96.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alvarez, M. R., J. Nagler and S. Bowler (2000) Issues, economics and the dynamics of multiparty elections: the British 1987 general election. American Political Science Review, 94: 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ansolabehere, S. and J. M. Snyder (2000) Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice, 103: 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aragones, E and T. Palfrey (2004) Spatial competition between two candidates of different quality: the effects of candidate ideology and private information. This volume.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Austen-Smith, D. and J. S. Banks (1998) Social choice theory, game theory and positive political theory. In N. Polsby (ed), Annual Review of Political Science vol I: 259–287.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Austen-Smith, D. and J. S. Banks (1999) Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preference Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Banks, J. S. (1995) Singularity theory and core existence in the spatial model. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 24: 523–536.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Banks, J. S. and J. Duggan (2004) The theory of probabilistic voting in the spatial model of elections: the theory of office-motivated candidates. This volume.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Banks, J. S. and J. Duggan (2000) A bargaining model of collective choice. American Political Science Review, 94: 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Banks, J. S., J. Duggan, and M. Le Breton (2002) Bounds for mixed strategy equilibria and the spatial model of elections. Journal of Economic Theory, 103: 88–105.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Banks, J. S., J. Duggan, and M. Le Breton (2004) Social choice and electoral competition in the general spatial model. Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brown, R. F. (1970) The Lefshetz Fixed Point Theorem Glenview IL: Scott and Foreman.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke, H., M. Stewart and P. Whiteley (1998) New models for new labour: the political economy of labour support: January 1992–April 1997. American Political Science Review, 92: 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Coughlin, P. (1992) Probabilistic Voting Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dierker, E. (1974) Topological Methods in Walrasian Economics Lecture Notes on Economics and Mathematical Sciences, 92, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Duggan, J. (2000) Equilibrium equivalence under expected plurality and probability of winning maximization. Mimeo. University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fan, K. (1961) A generalization of Tychonoff’s fixed point theorem. Mathematische Annalen, 42: 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Groseclose, T. (2001) A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45: 862–886.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hinich, M. (1977) Equilibrium in spatial voting: the median voter result is an artifact. Journal of Economic Theory, 16: 208–219.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Hirsch, M. W. (1976) Differential Topology Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Konishi, H. (1996) Equilibrium in abstract political economies: with an application to a public good economy with voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 13: 43–50.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin, T. M., J. Enelow and H. Dorussen (1999) Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 98: 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McKelvey, R. (1986) Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social choice. American Journal of Political Science, 30: 283–314.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Michael, E. (1956) Continuous selection I. Annals of Mathematics, 63: 361–382.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Miller, G. and N. Schofield (2003) Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 97: 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Milnor, J. (1963) Morse Theory Annals of Mathematics Studies, Series 51 Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nash, J. (1951) Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54: 289–295.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Poole, K. and H. Rosenthal (1984) Presidential elections 1968–1980: a spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 28: 283–312.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Quinn, K., A. Martin and A. Whitford (1999) Voter choice in multiparty democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 43: 1231–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Saari, D. (1997) The generic existence of a core for q-rules. Economic Theory, 9: 219–260.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Schofield, N. (1999) The C1 topology on the space of smooth preference profile. Social Choice and Welfare, 16: 445–470.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Schofield, N. (2003a) A valence model of political competition in Britain, 1992–1997. Electoral Studies, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schofield, N. (2003b) Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15: 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schofield, N. (2003c) Mathematical Methods in Economics and Social Choice Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schofield, N. (2004) Equilibrium in the spatial valence model of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16: 447–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schofield, N., A. Martin, K. Quinn and A. Whitford (1998) Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: a model based on multinomial probit. Public Choice, 97: 257–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schofield, N., G. Miller and A. Martin (2003) Critical elections and political realignment in the US: 1860–2000. Political Studies, 51: 217–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schofield, N. and R. Parks (2000) Nash equilibrium in a spatial model of coalition bargaining. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39: 133–174.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Schofield, N. and I. Sened (2002) Local Nash equilibrium in multiparty politics. Annals of Operations Research, 109: 193–210.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Schofield, N. and I. Sened (2003) Multiparty competition in Israel. British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schofield, N., I. Sened and D. Nixon (1998) Nash equilibrium in multiparty competition with ’stochastic’ voters. Annals of Operations Research, 84: 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Seyd, P. and P. Whitely (2002) New Labour’s Grassroots Basingstoke UK: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smale, S. (1960) Morse inequalities for a dynamical system. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 66: 43–49.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Smale, S. (1974) Global analysis and economics I: Pareto optimum and a generalization of Morse theory. In M. Peixoto (ed) Dynamical Systems New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stokes, D. (1992) Valence politics. In D. Kavanagh (ed) Electoral Politics Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schofield, N. (2005). Local Political Equilibria. In: Austen-Smith, D., Duggan, J. (eds) Social Choice and Strategic Decisions. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27295-X_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics