Research note: On the inverse relationship between votes and proximity for niche parties

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 206-220

  Ezrow, Lawrence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38849123677     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00724.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Adams, J. (2001). Party competition and responsible party government: A theory of spatial competition based upon insights from behavioral voting research. Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press.
2. Adams, J. Merrill III., S. (1999). Party policy equilibrium for alternative spatial voting models: An application to the Norwegian Storting. European Journal of Political Research 36 : 35 55.
3. Adams, J. Merrill III., S. (2000). Spatial models of candidate competition and the 1988 French presidential election: Are presidential candidates vote-maximizers? Journal of Politics 62 : 729 756.
4. Adams, J. Merrill III., S. (2005). Parties' policy platforms and elections outcomes: The three faces of policy representation. European Journal of Political Research 44 (6 899 918.
5. Adams J. et al 2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and electoral consequences of Western European parties' policy shifts, 1976-1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3 513 529.
6. Alvarez, R.M., Nagler, J. Bowler, S. (2000). Issues, economics and the dynamics of multiparty elections: The 1997 British general election. American Political Science Review 42 : 55 96.
7. Alvarez, R.M., Nagler, J. Willette, J. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies 19 : 237 253.
8. Andrews, J. Money, J. (2005). Champions and Challengers: Ideology and the Success of Non-established Parties in Established Party Systems. Unpublished typescript.
9. Budge, I. (1994). A new theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 : 443 467.
10. Budge, I. et al 2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945-1998. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
11. Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34 : 905 935.
12. De Palma, A., Hong, G. Thisse, J.-F. (1990). Equilibria in multiparty competition under uncertainty. Social Choice and Welfare 7 : 247 259.
13. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York : Harper.
14. Enelow, J. Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
15. Ezrow, L. (2005). Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A pooled analysis of Western European elections, 1984-1998. European Journal of Political Research 44 : 881 898.
16. Huber, J. Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics 1 : 73 111.
17. Laakso, M. Taagepera, R. (1979). 'Effective' number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12 : 3 27.
18. Laver, M. (2005). Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review 99 (2 263 281.
19. Lin, T.-M., Enelow, J. Dorussen, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice 98 : 59 82.
20. Mackie, T.T. Rose, R. (1991). The international almanac of electoral history. Washington, DC : Congressional Quarterly Inc.
21. Mackie, T.T. Rose, R. (1997). A decade of election results: Updating the international almanac. Glasgow : Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde.
22. Meguid, B. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy and niche party success. American Political Science Review 99 (3 347 360.
23. Schofield, N. Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty democracy: Elections and legislative politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
24. Schofield, N. et al 1998a). Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A model based on multinomial probit. Public Choice 97 (3 257 293.
25. Schofield, N. et al 1998b). Nash equilibrium in multiparty competition with 'stochastic' voters. Annals of Operations Research 84 : 3 27.
26. Stokes, D. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57 : 368 377.