Advertisement

A spatial analysis of candidate competition in dual member districts: The 1989 Chilean senatorial elections

  • Jay K. Dow
Chapter

Abstract

This study uses empirical spatial theory to evaluate candidate and voter behavior in senate elections contested during the 1989 Chilean general election. The study evaluates whether senatorial candidates competing in dual member districts under Chilean d’Hondt locate near the periphery or interior of the electoral space. Spatial analyses demonstrate the Chilean senatorial electoral system is characterized by centrifugal forces. In particular, candidates of the right locate on the periphery of the space and face few incentives to pursue moderate electoral strategies. The study also characterizes bases of party and candidate support and the underlying dimensions of political competition. Spatial analysis reveals both change and continuity in the pre- and post-authoritarian electoral universes.

Keywords

Ideal Point Electoral System Median Voter Vote Share Party System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. and Merrill III, S. (1998a). A Downsian model of candidate competition in the 1988 French presidential election. Typescript. Santa Barbara: University of California.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. and Merrill III, S. (1998b). Party structures and policy representation in multiparty elections: An application to Norwegian politics. Typescript. Santa Barbara: University of California.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, G. (1996). Legislative effects of single-member vs. multi-member districts. American Journal of Political Science 40: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich, J.H. and McKelvey, R.D. (1977). A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, T.W. and Amemiya, Y. (1988). The asymptotic normal distribution of estimators in factor analysis under general conditions. The Annals of Statistics 16: 759–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angell, A. (1990). The Chilean elections of 1989. Electoral Studies 3: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angell, A. and Pollack, B. (1990). The Chilean elections of 1989 and the politics of the transition to democracy. Bulletin of Latin American Research 9: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, D. (1958). Theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, H.E. (1991). Traits versus issues: Factor versus ideal-point analysis of candidate thermometer ratings. In J.A. Stimson (Ed.), Political Analysis, Vol. II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burnett, B.G. (1970). Political groups in Chile. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cahoon, L.S. and Hinich, M.J. (1976). A method for locating targets using range only. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22: 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cahoon, L.S., Hinich, M.J. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1978). A statistical multidimensional scaling method based on the spatial theory of voting. In P.C. Wang (Ed.), Graphical representation of multivariate data. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Caviedes, C.N. (1991). Elections in Chile: The road toward redemocratization. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, G.W. (1987). Electoral equilibrium under alternative voting institutions. American Journal of Political Science 31: 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, G.W. (1990a). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34: 903–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, G.W. (1990b). Multicandidate spatial competition. In J.M. Enelow and M.J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, S.K. (1984). A nonmetric test of spatial theories of elections. Political Methodology 10: 1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Denzau, A., Kats, A. and Slutsky, S. (1985). Multi-agent equilibria with market share and ranking objectives. Social Choice and Welfare 2: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. Eaton, B.C. and Lipsey, R. (1975). The principle of minimum differentiation reconsidered: Some new developments in the theory of spatial competition. Review of Economic Studies 42: 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Endersby, J.W. and Hinich, M.J. (1992). The stability of voter perceptions: A comparison of candidate positions across time using the spatial theory of voting. Journal of Mathematical and Computer Modeling 16: 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Enelow, J.M. (1986). The linkage between predictive dimensions and candidate issue positions in American presidential elections: An examination of group based differences. Political Behavior 8: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enelow, J.M. (1988). A methodology for testing a new spatial model of elections. Quality and Quantity 22: 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enelow, J.M. and Hinich, M.J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Enelow, J.M. (1989). The locations of American presidential candidates: An empirical test of a new spatial model of elections. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 12: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Enelow, J.M. (1994). A test of the predictive dimensions model in spatial voting theory. Public Choice 78: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Enelow, J.M. and Hinich, M.J. (Eds.). (1990). Advances in the spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Faundez, J. (1988). Marxism and democracy in Chile. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Garreton, M.A. (1989). The Chilean political process. Winchester, MA: Unw in Hyman.Google Scholar
  30. Gill, F.G. (1966). The political system of Chile. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  31. Green, D.P. and Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Greenberg, J. and Shepsie, K. (1987). The effect of multiparty rewards in multiparty competition with entry. American Political Science Review 81: 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenberg, J. and Weber, S. (1985). Multiparty equilibria under proportional representation. American Political Science Review 79: 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hinich, M.J. and Mungeer, M.C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hinich, M.J. (1996). Analytical politics. New York: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  36. Hinich, M.J. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1970). Plurality maximization versus vote maximization: A spatial analysis with variable participation. American Political Science Review 64: 772–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iversen, T. (1994). Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, M.P. (1993). The political consequences of electoral laws in Latin America and the Caribbean. Electoral Studies 12: 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langton, K.P. and Rapoport, R. (1976). Religion and leftist mobilization in Chile. Comparative Political Studies 9: 277–308.Google Scholar
  40. Laver, M. and Schofield, N. (1990). Multiparty government. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, T.-M., Chu, Y.-H. and Hinich, M.J. (1996). Conflict displacement and regime transition in Taiwan: A spatial analysis. World Politics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  43. Lipset, S.M. and Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments. In S.M. Lipset and S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross national perspectives. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Macdonald, S.E., Listhaug, O. and Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 85: 1107–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. and Listhaug, O. (1995). Political sophistication and models of issues voting. British Journal of Political Science 25: 453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merrill, S. III. (1994). A probabilistic model for the spatial distribution of party support in multiparty elections. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1190–1197.Google Scholar
  47. Merrill, S. III. (1995). Discriminating between the directional and proximity spatial models of electoral competition. Electoral Studies 14: 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palfrey, T.R. (1984). Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies 51: 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Panzer, J. and Paredes, R. (1991). The role of economic issues in elections: The case of the 1988 Chilean presidential referendum. Public Choice 71: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1984). U.S. presidential elections 1968–1980: A spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science 28: 282–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Portes, A. (1976). Occupation and lower-class political orientation in Chile. In A. Valenzuela and J.S. Valenzuela (Eds.), Chile: Politics and society. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  52. Rabinowitz, G. (1978). On the nature of political issues: Insights from a spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science 70: 804–809.Google Scholar
  53. Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabinowitz, G., Macdonald, S.E. and Listhaug, O. (1991). Old players in a new game: Party strategy in multiparty systems. Comparative Political Studies 24: 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rusk, J. and Weisberg, H. (1972). Perceptions of presidential candidates. Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 388–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schofield, N., Martin, A., Quin, K. and Whitford, A. (1998). Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A model based on the multinomial probit. Public Choice (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  58. Schofield, N. (1998). A comparison of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems based on spatial modeling and `rational’ politicians. Typescript. St. Louis: Washington University.Google Scholar
  59. Scott, D.W. (1992). Multivariate density estimation. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scully, T.R. (1992). Rethinking the center: Party politics in nineteenth-and twentieth-century Chile. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Scully, T.R. (1995). Reconstructing party politics in Chile. In S. Mainwaring and T.R. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Shepsle, K.A. (1991). Models of multiparty electoral competition. New York: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
  63. Shepsle, K.A. and Cohen, R.N. (1990). Multiparty competition, entry and entry deterrence in spatial models of elections. In J.M. Enelow and M.J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M.S. (1989). Seats and vote. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Valenzuela, A. (1985). Origins and characteristics of the Chilean system: A proposal for a parliamentary form of government. Working Paper No. 164, The Woodrow Wilson Center.Google Scholar
  66. Valenzuela, S. and Valenzuela, A. (1985). Chile and the breakdown of democracy. In H.J. Wiarda and H.F. Kline (Eds.), Latin American politics and development. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  67. Valenzuela, A. and Valenzuela, S. (1986). Party opposition under the authoritarian regime. In A. Valenzuela and J.S. Valenzuela (Eds.), Military rule in Chile. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Walker, I. (1993). Political alliances and the role of the centre: The Chilean Christian Democratic Party. In A. Angell and B. Pollack (Eds.), The legacy of dictatorship. Liverpool: Institute of Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
  69. Weisberg, H. and Rusk, J. (1970). Dimensions of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 64: 1167–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay K. Dow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations