Condorcet efficiency with adaptive parties in a spatial model

Mathematical and Computer Modelling

Volumn 48, Issue 9-10, 2008, Pages 1298-1307

  Adams, James ^a   Mayer, Alexander K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SIMULATION;

DECISION RULES; MULTI-DIMENSIONAL; POLICY STRATEGIES; SPATIAL DISPERSIONS; SPATIAL MODELLING; VOTING SYSTEMS;

VOTING MACHINES;

EID: 52949117692     PISSN: 08957177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.035     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Merrill III S. A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 29 1 (1985) 23-48
2. Chamberlin J., and Cohen M. Towards applicable social choice theory: A comparison of social choice functions under spatial model assumptions. American Political Science Review 72 4 (1978) 1341-1356
3. Merrill III S. Making Multicandidate Elections more Democratic (1988), Princeton University Press
4. Adams J. Condorcet efficiency and the behavioral model of the vote. Journal of Politics 59 4 (1997) 1252-1263
5. Adams J. An assessment of voting systems under the proximity and directional models of the vote. Public Choice 98 (1999) 131-151
6. Jackson J. Issues, party choices, and presidential votes. American Journal of Political Science 19 1 (1975) 161-186
7. R.M. Alvarez, J. Nagler, J. Willette, Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections, Social science working paper 1052 California Institute of Technology, 1999
8. Laver M. Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review 99 2 (2005) 263-281
9. J. Fowler, M. Laver, A tournament of party strategies, Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August 30-September 2, 2006
10. Kollman K., Miller J., and Page S. Adaptive parties in spatial elections. American Political Science Review 86 4 (1992) 929-937
11. R. Potthoff, Condorcet polling, Presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio, Texas, March 7-9, 2008
12. Sartori G. Representational systems. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 13 (1968) 470-475
13. Dalton R. Political parties and political representation. Comparative Political Studies 17 (1985) 267-299
14. Ansolabehere S., Snyder J., and Stewart III C. Candidate positioning in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45 1 (2001) 136-159
15. Rabinowitz G., and Macdonald S. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 89 1 (1989) 93-121
16. Merrill III S., and Grofman B. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Models (1999), Cambridge University Press
17. Adams J., and Adams E. The geometry of voting cycles. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 1 (2000) 131-153
18. J. Nagel, C. Wlezian, Center-party strength and major-party divergence in Britain, 1945-2005, Typescript, 2008
19. Budge I. A new theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 4 (1994) 443-467
20. Adams J., Clark M., Ezrow L., and Glasgow G. Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of western European parties' policy shifts, 1976-1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 3 (2006) 513-529
21. Ezrow L. The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. The Journal of Politics 69 1 (2007) 182-192
22. I. Budge, L. Ezrow, M. McDonald, Party factionalism and policy change: An integrated dynamic theory, Typescript, 2008
23. Budge I., Klingemann H., Volkens A., Tannenbaum E., and Bara J. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998 (2001), Oxford University Press
24. J. Money, J. Andrews, Parties' electoral strategies: An empirical analysis, Typescript 2008
25. Edwards E., Netjes C., and Steenbergen M. Who's cueing whom? Assessing the relationship between electorate opinion and party positions in European integration. European Union Politics 8 1 (2007) 39-49
26. Aldrich J. A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review 77 (1983) 974-990
27. McGann A. The advantages of ideological cohesion: A model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multiparty democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14 1 (2002) 37-70
28. J. Adams, A. Haupt, H. Stoll, What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in western Europe, Comparative Political Studies (in press)
29. Przeworski A., and Sprague J. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism (1986), University of Chicago Press
30. Kitschelt H. The Transformation of European Social Democracy (1994), Cambridge University Press, New York
31. Benoit K., and Laver M. Party Policy in Modern Democracies (2006), Routledge, London
32. Huber J., and Inglehart R. Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics 1 1 (1995) 73-111
33. Converse P., and Pierce R. Political Representation in France (1986), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
34. J. Adams, Z. Somer-Topcu, Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties' policy shifts? Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five postwar democracies, British Journal of Political Science (in press)
35. Campbell A., Converse P., Miller W., and Stokes D. The American Voter (1960), Wiley, New York
36. Nurmi H. An assessment of voting systems simulations. Public Choice 73 (1992) 459-487
37. Z. Somer-Topcu, Time is of the essence: How and when do past election results matter? Journal of Politics (in press)