Why party leaders are more extreme than their members: Modeling sequential elimination elections in the U.S. House of Representatives

Public Choice

Volumn 113, Issue 3-4, 2002, Pages 337-356

  McGann, A J ^a   Grofman, Bernard ^a   Koetzle, W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b US House of Representatives   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036034987     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1020825426172     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adams, G. (1998). An evolution-based model of party dynamics. Mimeo. Paper presented at 1998 Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, March 13-15, 1998.
2. Aldrich, J. (1983). A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review 77: 974-990.
3. Aldrich, J. and M. McGinnis, M. (1989). A model of party constraints on optimal candidate positions. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 12: 437-450.
4. Aranson, P. and Ordeshook, P. (1972). Spatial strategies for sequential elections. In R.G. Niemi and H.F. Weisberg, (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making, 298-331. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
5. Axelrod, R. (1970). Conflict of interest. Chicago: Markham.
6. Banks, M. (1999). Comment on Gregg Phifer's article, "Voting Procedures". Parliamentary Journal 50: 89-90.
7. Black, D. (1958/1971). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Brunell, T., Koetzle, W., DiNardo, J., Grofman, B and Feld, S. (1999). The R2 =. 93, Where they do they differ? Comparing liberal and conservative interest group ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly 24: 87-99.
9. Carty, R.K. and Blake, D. (1999). The adoption of membership votes for choosing party leaders: The experience of Canadian parties. Party Politics 5: 211-224.
10. Clausen, A. and Wilcox, C. 1987. Policy partisanship in legislative leadership recruitment and behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 122: 243-263.
11. Coleman, J. (1971). Foundations for a theory of collective decisions. In B. Lieberman (Ed.), Social choice, 27-46. New York: Gordon and Breach
12. Coleman, J. (1972). The positions of political parties in elections. In R.G. Niemi and H.F. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making, 332-357. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
13. Cooper, A and Munger, M. (2000). The (un)predictability of primaries with many candidates: Simulation evidence. Public Choice 103: 337-355.
14. Davis, O., Hinich, M. and Ordeshook, P. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64:426-448.
15. Downs, A. (1957) An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
16. Eaton, B. and Lipsey, R. (1975). The principle of minimum differentiation reconsidered: Some new developments in the theory of spatial competition. Review of Economic Studies 42: 27-49.
17. Fishburn, P. and Gehrlein, W. (1976). An analysis of simple two stage voting systems. Behavioral Science 21: 1-12.
18. Fishburn, P. and Gehrlein, W. (1977). An analysis of voting procedures with nonranked voting. Behavioral Science 22: 178-185.
19. Grofman, B. (1982). A dynamic model of proto-coalition formation in ideological N-space. Behavioral Science 27: 77-90.
20. Grofman, B., Koetzle, W. and McGann, A. (1998). Leadership selection in the U.S. House. Mimeo. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
21. Grofman, B., Merrill, S., Brunell, T. and Koetzle, W. (1999). The potential electoral disadvantages of a catch-all party: Ideological variance among republicans and democrats in the 50 U.S. states. Party Politics 5: 199-210.
22. Grofman, B., Straffin, P. and Noviello, N. (1996). The sequential dynamics of cabinet formation, stochastic error, and a test of competing models. In M. Schofield (Ed.), Collective decision making: Choice and political economy, 281-293. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
23. Groseclose, T., Levitt, S., and Snyder, J. Jr. (1999). Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review 93: 33-50.
24. King, D. (1998). The polarization of American political parties and mistrust of government. Kennedy School of Government Politics Research Group Working Paper.
25. King, D. and Zeckhauser, R. (1998). Legislators as negotiators. Kennedy School of Government Politics Research Group Working Paper.
26. Kollman, K., Miller, J. and Page, S. (1997) Political institutions and sorting in a Tiebout model. American Economic Review 87: 977-992.
27. Koopman, D. 1996. Hostile takeover. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
28. McGann, A.J. (1997). Modeling the effects of intra-party institutions on systems of party competition (Skewness, party dominance and the accommodation of shifts in public opinion). Mimeo. Paper delivered at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28-31, 1997.
29. McGann, A.J. (1999). The modal voter result under various voting systems. Mimeo. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, New Orleans.
30. McGann, A. (2000). The advantages of ideological cohesion: A model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multi-party democracies. University of California, Irvine: Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences Technical Report 00-24.
31. McGann, A., Koetzle, W. and Grofman, B. (2000). How an ideologically concentrated minority can trump a dispersed majority: Modeling plurality, run-off and sequential elimination elections. University of California, Irvine: Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences Technical Report 00-25.
32. McSweeney, D. (1999). Changing the rules changed the game: Selecting conservative leaders. Party Politics 5: 471-483.
33. Merrill, S. III. (1984). A comparison of the efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 28: 23-49.
34. Merrill, S. III. (1985). A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulations under spatial model assumptions. Public Choice 47: 389-403.
35. Merrill, S. III. (1988). Making multicandidate elections more democratic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36. Merrill, S. III, Grofman, B., Brunell, T. and Koetzle, W. (1999). The power of ideologically concentrated minorities. Journal of Theoretical Politics 11: 57-74.
37. Milchtaich, I. and Winter, E. 1997. Stability and segregation in group formation. Mimeo. Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Washington University, St Louis.
38. Miller, Nicholas. (1996). Majority rule and minority interests. In I. Shapiro and R. Hardin (Eds.), Political order: Nomos XXXVII, 207-250. New York: New York University Press.
39. Owen, G. and Grofman, B. 1995. Two-tage electoral competition in two-party contests: Persistent divergence of party positions with and without expressive voting. Mimeo. Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, California, March 24-26, 1995. (A revised version was presented at the Conference on Strategy and Politics, Center for the Study of Collective Choice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, April 12, 1996.)
40. Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29: 357-384.
41. Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
42. Polser, B. and Rhodes, C. (1997). Pre-leadership signaling in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22: 351-368.
43. Rae, N. (1989). The decline and fall of the liberal republicans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Regenwetter, M., Adams, J. and Grofman, B. (2000). Don't worry about cycles, worry about representivity. Mimeo. Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Charleston, South Carolina, March 10-12.
45. Reiter, H. (1981). Intra-party deavages in the United States today. Western Political Quarterly 34: 287-300.
46. Riker, W. (1982). Liberalism v. populism. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company.
47. Robertson, D. (1976). A theory of party competition. London: John Wiley & Sons.
48. Rohde, D. (1991). Parties and leaders in the post-reform house. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. Saari, D. (1995). The basic geometry of voting. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
50. Schousen, M. (1994). Who's in charge? A study of coalitions and power in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, Duke University.
51. Straffin, P. and Grofman, B. (1984). Parliamentary coalitions: A tour of models. Mathematics Magazine 57: 259-274.
52. Tiebout, C. (1956). Pare theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: □-000.
53. Truman, D. (1959). The congressional party. New York: Wiley.
54. Westhoff, F. (1977). Existence of equilibria with a local public good. Journal of Economic Theory 14: 84-112.
55. Westhoff, F. (1979). Policy inferences from community choice models: A caution. Journal of Urban Economics 6: 535-549.