Spatial models of candidate competition and the 1988 French presidential election: Are presidential candidates vote-maximizers?

Journal of Politics

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 729-756

  Adams, James ^a   Merrill III, Samuel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WILKES UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034350106     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0022-3816.00031     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adams, James. N.d.(a). Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based upon Insights from Behavioral Voting Research. The University of Michigan Press. Forthcoming.
2. -. N.d.(b). "A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively." British Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.
3. Adams. James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1998. "A Downsian Model of Candidate Competition in the 1988 French Presidential Election." Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles.
4. -. 1999a. "Party Policy Equilibrium for Alternative Spatial Voting Models: An Application to the Norwegian Storting." European Journal of Political Research 36(October): 235-55.
5. -. 1999b. "Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Parties So Extreme?" American Journal of Political Science 43(July): 765-91.
6. Alvarez, Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1995. "Economics, Issues, and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 39(August): 714-44.
7. Alvarez, Michael, Shaun Bowler, and Jonathan Nagler. 1996. "Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The 1997 British General Election." Working Paper. California Institute of Technology.
8. Alvarez, Michael, Jonathan Nagler, and Jennifer Willette. 1999. "Measuring the Relative Impact of Issues and the Economy in Democratic Elections." Social Science Working Paper 1052. California Institute of Technology.
9. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
10. Converse, Philip, and Roy Pierce. 1992. "Partisanship and the Party System." Political Behavior 14(3): 239-59.
11. -. 1993. "Comment on Fleury and Lewis-Beck." Journal of Politics 55(November): 1110-17.
12. Cox, Gary. 1990. "Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems." American Journal of Political Science 34: 905-35.
13. Dalton, Russell. 1985. "Political Parties and Political Representation." Comparative Political Studies 18 (October): 267-99.
14. Dow, Jay. 1997a. "A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
15. -. 1997b. "Voter Choice and Strategies in French Presidential Elections: The 1995 First Ballot Election." Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
16. -. 1999. "Tests for Strategic Voting in the First Ballot of the 1995 French Presidential Election." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta.
17. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
18. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1981. "A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model." American Journal of Political Science 25 (August): 483-93.
19. -. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Enkson, Robert, and David Romero. 1990. "Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote." American Political Science Review 84(December): 1103-26.
21. Fleury, Christopher, and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1993. "Anchoring the French Voter: Ideology Versus Party." Journal of Politics 55(November): 1100-1109.
22. Huber, John, and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. "Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies." Party Politics 1(January): 73-111.
23. Iversen, Torben. 1994. "Political Leadership and Representation in Western European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting." American Journal of Political Science 38(January): 45-74.
24. Johnston, Richard, Patrick Fournier, and Richard Jenkins. 1998. "Party Location and Party Support: Unpacking Competing Models." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
25. Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King. 2000. "No Evidence on Directional versus Proximity Voting." Political Analysis 8(Winter): 21-33.
26. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug. 1998. "On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped." Journal of Politics 60(August): 653-90.
27. Michelat, Guy. 1993. "In Search of Left and Right." In The French Voter Decides, ed. Daniel Boy and Nonna Mayer. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28. Merrill, Samuel III, and Bernard Grofman. 1997. "Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice." Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(January): 25-48.
29. -. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
30. Pierce, Roy. 1995. Choosing the Chief: Presidential Elections in France and the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31. -. 1996. French Presidential Election Survey, 1988 [computer file]. ICPSR version. Roy Pierce, University of Michigan [producer]. Ann Arbor: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1996.
32. Powell, G. Bingham. 1989. "Constitutional Design and Citizen Electoral Control." Journal of Theoretical Politics 1(2): 107-30.
33. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting." American Political Science Review 89(March): 93-121.
34. Rose, Richard, and Ian McAllister. 1990. The Loyalties of Voters: A Lifetime Learning Model. London: Sage.
35. Safran, William. 1998. The French Polity. Addison Wesley Longman.
36. Schofield, Norman. 1997. "A Comparison of Majoritarian and Proportional Electoral Systems Based on Spatial Modeling and 'Rational' Politicians." Presented at the Conference on Constitutional Issues in Modern Democracies, Messina, Italy.
37. Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened. 1998. "Political Equilibrium in Multiparty Competition, With Both Electoral and Coalition Risk." Typescript. Washington University in St. Louis.
38. Schofield, Norman, Andrew Martin, Kevin Quinn, and Andrew Whitford. 1998. "Multiparty Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit." Public Choice 97(December): 257-93.
39. Schofield, Norman, Itai Sened, and David Nixon. 1998. "New Equilibrium in Multiparty Competition with 'Stochastic' Voters." Annals of Operations Research 84: 3-27.
40. Train, Kenneth. 1986. Qualitative Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.