A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors

A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 1-311

  Adams, James F ^a   Merrill, Samuel ^b   Grofman, Bernard ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WILKES UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926126044     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511614453     Document Type: Book

References (239)

1. Aardal, Bernt. 1990. “The Norwegian Parliamentary Election of 1989.” Electoral Studies 9: 151-8.
2. Aardal, Bernt, and Henry Valen. 1997. “The Storting Elections of 1989 and 1993: Norwegian Politics in Perspective.” In Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway, edited by Kaare Strom and Lars Svasand. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Adams, James. 1998. “Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition: The Pressure for Responsible Parties.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 5-31.
4. Adams, James. 1999a. “Multicandidate Spatial Competition with Probabilistic Voting.” Public Choice 99: 259-74.
5. Adams, James. 1999b. “Policy Divergence in Multiparty Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 100: 103-22.
6. Adams, James. 2001a. “A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively.” British Journal of Political Science 31: 121-58.
7. Adams, James. 2001b. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based upon Insights from Behavioral Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8. Adams, James, Benjamin Bishin, and Jay Dow. 2004. “Representation in Congressional Campaigns: Evidence for Directional/Discounting Motivations in United States Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 66 (2): 348-73.
9. Adams, James, Michael Clark, Lawrence Ezrow, and Garrett Glasgow. Forthcoming.“Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?” British Journal of Political Science.
10. Adams, James, Jay Dow, and Samuel Merrill III. 2001. “The Political Consequences of Abstention Due to Alienation and Indifference: Applications to Presidential Elections.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2.
11. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1998. “A Downsian Model of Candidate Competition in the 1988 French Presidential Election.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA, March 10-12.
12. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1999a. “Party Policy Equilibria for Alternative Spatial Voting Models: An Application to the Norwegian Storting.” European Journal of Political Research 36: 235-55.
13. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1999b. “Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Strategies So Extreme?” American Journal of Political Science 43: 765-91.
14. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 2000. “Spatial Models of Candidate Competition and the 1988 French Presidential Election: Are Presidential Candidates Vote-Maximizers?” Journal of Politics 62: 729-56.
15. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 2003a. “Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections.” Journal of Politics 65: 161-89.
16. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 2003b. “Policy-Seeking Motivations When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage: Strategic Implications and Emprical Applications to Presidential Elections.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August 28-31.
17. Aldrich, John. 1983a. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77: 974-90.
18. Aldrich, John. 1983b. “A Spatial Model with Party Activists: Implications for Electoral Dynamics.” Public Choice 41: 63-100.
19. Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Alesina, Alberto, and Howard Rosenthal. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1995. “Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 714-44.
23. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1998a. “When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 55-96.
24. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1998b. “Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1349-63.
25. Alvarez, R. Michael, Jonathan Nagler, and Shaun Bowler. 2000. “Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The 1987 British General Election.” American Political Science Review 94: 131-49.
26. Alvarez, R. Michael, Jonathan Nagler, and Jennifer Willette. 2000. “Measuring the Relative Impact of Issues and the Economy in Democratic Elections.” Electoral Studies 19: 237-53.
27. Anderson, Simon, and Gerhard Glomm. 1992. “Alienation, Indifference, and the Choice of Ideological Position.” Social Choice and Welfare 9: 17-31.
28. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James Snyder. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Elections Models.” Public Choice 103: 327-36.
29. Aranson, Peter, and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1972. “Spatial Strategy for Sequential Elections.” In Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, edited by R. Niemi and Herbert Weisberg. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
30. Austen-Smith, David. 1986. “Legislative Coalitions and Electoral Equilibrium.” Public Choice 50: 18-210.
31. Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffery Banks. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82: 405-22.
32. Axelrod, Robert. 1970. Conflict of Interest. Chicago: Markham.
33. Baker, Kendall, Russell Dalton, and Kai Hildebrandt. 1981. Germany Transformed: Political Culture and the New Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Barnes, Samuel. 1977. Representation in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Baron, David. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88: 33-47.
36. Bartels, Larry, and John Zaller. 2001. “Presidential Vote Models: A Recount.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34: 9-20.
37. Bartle, John. 1998. “Left-Right Position Matters, but Does Social Class? Causal Models of the 1992 British General Election.” British Journal of Political Science 28: 501-29.
38. Berger, Mark, Michael Munger, and Richard Potthoff. 2000. “The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12: 228-40.
39. Berinski, Adam, and Jeffrey Lewis. 2001. “Voting under Uncertainty: Estimating Voters’ Risk Preferences.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2.
40. Bishin, Benjamin. 2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 389-415.
41. Brady, Henry, and Paul Sniderman. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79: 143-63.
42. Brams, Steven, and Samuel Merrill III. 1991. “Final-Offer Arbitration with a Bonus.” European Journal of Political Economy 7: 79-92.
43. Brody, Richard A., and Bernard Grofman. 1982. “Stimulus Differentiation versus Stimulus Complexity as Factors Affecting Turnout in Two-Candidate and Multicandidate Races.” Political Behavior 4: 83-92.
44. Brody, Richard A., and Benjamin Page. 1973. “Indifference, Alienation, and Rational Decisions: The Effects of Candidate Evaluations on Turnout and the Vote.” Public Choice 15: 1-17.
45. Budge, Ian. 1994. “A New Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally.” British Journal of Political Science 24: 443-67.
46. Budge, Ian, and Michael McDonald. 2003. “Elections, Parties, and Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate.” Unpublished manuscript.
47. Burden, Barry. 2000a. “The Polarizing Effects of Congressional Primaries.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, edited by Peter Galderisi, Marni Ezra, and Michael Lyons. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
48. Burden, Barry. 2000b. “Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies.” Political Analysis 8: 389-98.
49. Burden, Barry, and David Kimball. 2002. Why Americans Split Their Tickets: Campaigns, Competition, and Divided Government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
50. Burden, Barry, and Dean Lacy. 1999. “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Third-Party Candidates in United States Presidential Elections, 1968-1996.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1-4.
51. Butler, David, and Donald Stokes. 1969. Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s.
52. Callander, Steven. 2000. “Electoral Competition with Entry: Non-Centrist Equilibria and the Domain of Duverger’s Law.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Charleston, SC, March 10-12.
53. Callander, Steven, and Simon Wilkie. 2002. “Candidate Flexibility.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 1618.
54. Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidates, Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 69-95.
55. Cameron, Charles, and James Enelow. 1992. “Asymmetric Policy Effects, Campaign Contributions, and the Spatial Theory of Elections.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 16: 117-32.
56. Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
57. Campbell, James. 1996. “Polls and Votes: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns.” American Politics Quarterly 24: 408-33.
58. Chapman, David. 1967. “Models of the Working of a Two-Party Electoral System -1.” Papers on Non-Market Decision-Making 3: 19-38.
59. Chapman, David. 1968. “Models of the Working of a Two-Party Electoral System - II.” Public Choice 5: 19-38.
60. Chappell, Henry W., and William R. Keech. 1986. “Policy Motivation and Party Differences in a Dynamic Spatial Model of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 80: 881-99.
61. Charlot, Jean, and Monica Charlot. 1997. “The Polls and the 1995 Election.” In French Presidentialism and the Election of 1995, edited by John Gaffney and Lorna Mills. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
62. Coleman, James. 1971. “Internal Processes Governing Party Positions in Elections.” Public Choice 11: 35-60.
63. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1986. “The Role of Inference in the Perception of Political Candidates.” In Political Cognition, edited by Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter. New York: Free Press.
65. Converse, Philip. 1970. “Attitudes and Nonattitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, edited by E. Tufte. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
66. Converse, Philip, and Roy Pierce. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Converse, Philip, and Roy Pierce. 1993. “Comment on Fleury and Lewis-Beck.” Journal of Politics 55: 1110-17.
68. Coughlin, Peter J. 1992. Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Cox, Gary. 1984. “An Expected-Utility Model of Electoral Competition.” Quality and Quantity 18: 337-49.
70. Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 903-35.
71. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Dalton, Russell. 1985. “Political Parties and Political Representation.” Comparative Political Studies 17: 267-99.
73. Dalton, Russell. 2002. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Societies, 3rd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
74. Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich, and Peter Ordeshook. 1970. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 64: 426-48.
75. de Palma, A., V. Ginsberg, M. Labbe, and J.-F. Thisse. 1989. “Competitive Location with Random Utilities.” Transportation Science 23: 244-52.
76. de Palma, A., G. Hong, and J.-F. Thisse. 1990. “Equilibria in Multiparty Competition under Uncertainty.” Social Choice and Welfare 7: 247-59.
77. Denver, David. 1998. “The Government That Could Do No Right.” In New Labour Triumphs: Britain at the Polls, edited by Anthony King. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
78. Dow, Jay. 1999. “Voter Choice in the 1995 French Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 21: 305-24.
79. Dow, Jay. 2001. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Systems.” Electoral Studies 9: 109-25.
80. Dow, Jay, and James Endersby. 2004. “A Comparison of Conditional Logit and Multinomial Probit Models in Multiparty Elections.” Electoral Studies 23: 107-22.
81. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
82. Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
83. Eaton, B. Curtis, and Richard G. Lipsey. 1975. “The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Reconsidered: Some New Developments in the Theory of Spatial Competition.” Review of Economic Studies 42: 27-49.
84. Endersby, James, and Steven Galatas. 1997. “British Parties and Spatial Competition: Dimensions of Evaluation in the 1992 Election.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Francisco, CA, March 21-23.
85. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 483-93.
86. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1982. “Non-Spatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition.” Journal of Politics 44: 115-30.
87. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Erikson, Robert, and David Romero. 1990. “Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote.” American Political Science Review 84: 1103-26.
89. Ezrow, Lawrence. 2003. “Exploring Convergence.” Unpublished manuscript.
90. Farah, Barbara. 1980. “Political Representation in West Germany.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
91. Feld, Scott, and Bernard Grofman. 1991. “Voter Loyalty, Incumbency Advantage, and the Benefit of the Doubt.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3: 115-37.
92. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.
93. Fiorina, Morris. 1973. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
94. Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
95. Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
96. Fiorina, Morris. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A ByProduct of Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88: 304-16.
97. Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.
98. Fleury, Christopher, and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1993. “Anchoring the French Voter: Ideology versus Party.” Journal of Politics 55: 1100-9.
99. Frears, John. 1991. Parties and Voters in France. London: Hurst.
100. Garvey, Gerald. 1966. “The Theory of Party Equilibrium.” American Political Science Review 60: 29-38.
101. Gerber, Alan, and Donald Green. 1999. “Misperceptions about Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 189-210.
102. Gerber, Elizabeth, and John Jackson. 1993. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 87: 639-56.
103. Gerber, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Morton. 1998. “Primary Elections Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14: 304-24.
104. Gershtenson, Joseph, and Dennis Plane. 1999. “The Effects of Candidate Ideological Location on Individual Propensity to Vote and Aggregate-Level Voter Turnout in United States Senate Elections.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1-4.
105. Glasgow, Garrett. 2001. “Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections.” Political Analysis 2: 116-36.
106. Glazer, Amihai, Bernard Grofman, and Guillermo Owen. 1998. “A Neo-Downsian Model of Group-Oriented Voting and Racial Backlash.” Public Choice 97: 23-34.
107. Granberg, Donald. 1987. “A Contextual Effect in Political Perception and SelfPlacement on an Ideology Scale: Comparative Analyses of Sweden and the United States.” Scandinavian Political Studies 10: 39-60.
108. Granberg, Donald, and Edward Brent. 1980. “Perceptions and Issue Positions of Presidential Candidates.” American Scientist 68: 617-85.
109. Granberg, Donald, and Thad A. Brown. 1992. “The Perception of Ideological Distance.” Western Political Quarterly 45: 727-50.
110. Granberg, Donald, Wayne Harris, and Michael King. 1981. “Assimilation but Little Contrast in the 1976 United States Presidential Election.” Journal of Psychology 108: 241-47.
111. Granberg, Donald, and Soren Holmberg. 1988. The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
112. Granberg, Donald, and Richard Jenks. 1977. “Assimilation and Contrast Effects in the 1972 Election.” Human Relations 30: 623-40.
113. Grofman, Bernard. 1982. Book review: Political Geography. American Political Science Review 76(4): 883-5.
114. Grofman, Bernard. 1985. “The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.” Journal of Politics 47: 230-7.
115. Grofman, Bernard. 2001. “Introduction: The Joy of Puzzle Solving.” In Political Science as Puzzle Solving, edited by Bernard Grofman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
116. Grofman, Bernard. In press. “Downs and Two-party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science.
117. Grofman, Bernard, and Thomas Brunell. 2001. “Explaining the Ideological Differences between the Two United States Senators Elected from the Same State: An Institutional Effects Model.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, edited by Peter Galderisi, Marni Ezra, and Michael Lyons. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
118. Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzle, Michael McDonald, and Thomas Brunell. 2000. “A New Look at Ticket-Splitting for House and President: The Comparative Midpoints Model.” Journal of Politics 62: 34-50.
119. Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 862-86.
120. Guttman, Joel, Naftali Hilger, and Yochanen Shacmurove. 1994. “Voting as Investment and Voting as Consumption: New Evidence.” Kyklos 47: 197-207.
121. Heath, Anthony, and Roy Pierce. 1992. “It Was Party Identification All Along: Question Order Effects on Reports of Party Identification in Britain.” Electoral Studies 11: 93-105.
122. Henrici, Peter. 1964. Elements of Numerical Analysis. New York: Wiley.
123. Himmelweit, H. T., M. Jaeger, and J. Stockdale. 1978. “Memory for Past Vote: Implications of a Study of Bias in Recall.” British Journal of Political Science 8: 365-76.
124. Hinich, Melvin. 1978. “Some Evidence on Non-Voting Models in the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 33: 83-102.
125. Hinich, Melvin, John Ledyard, and Peter Ordeshook. 1972. “Nonvoting and Existence of Equilibrium under Majority Rule.” Journal of Economic Theory 4: 44-53.
126. Hinich, Melvin, and Michael Munger. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
127. Hinich, Melvin, and Peter Ordeshook. 1970. “Plurality Maximization vs. Vote Maximization: A Spatial Analysis with Variable Participation.” American Political Science Review 64: 772-91.
128. Hinich, Melvin, and Walker Pollard. 1981. “A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 323-41.
129. Hoch, Stephen J. 1987. “Perceived Consensus and Predictive Accuracy: The Pros and Cons of Projection.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 221-34.
130. Huber, John, and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. “Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.” Party Politics 1: 73-111.
131. Huber, John, and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. 1994. “Congruence between Citizens and Policy-Makers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy.” World Politics 46: 291-326.
132. Hug, Simon. 1995. “Third Parties in Equilibrium.” Public Choice 82: 159-80.
133. Husted, T. A., Lawrence Kenny, and Rebecca B. Morton. 1995. “Constituent Errors in Assessing Their Senators.” Public Choice 83: 251-71.
134. Ingberman, Daniel. 1992. “Incumbent Reputations and Ideological Campaign Contributions.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 16: 147-69.
135. Iversen, Torben. 1994a. “Political Leadership and Representation in Western European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting.” American Journal ofPolitical Science 38: 45-74.
136. Iversen, Torben. 1994b. “The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilization Effects.” Comparative Political Studies 27: 155-89.
137. Jackson, John E. 1975. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 19: 161-86.
138. Jackson, John E. 1997. “A Computational Model of Electoral Competition.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28-31.
139. Jennings, Kent, and Gregory Markus. 1984. “Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul.” American Political Science Review 78: 1000-18.
140. Jennings, Kent, and Richard Niemi. 1981. Generations and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
141. Kavanaugh, Dennis. 2000. British Politics: Continuities and Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
142. Keane, Michael. 1992. “A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10: 193-200.
143. Kedar, Orit. 2002. “Balancing the Seesaw: Rationality and Menu Dependence in Voter Behavior.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 25-28.
144. Kenny, Lawrence, and Babak Lotfinia. Forthcoming. “Evidence on the Importance of Spatial Models in Presidential Nominations and Elections.” Public Choice.
145. Kinder, Donald, and Roderick Kiewiet. 1981. “Sociotropic Voting: The American Case.” British Journal of Political Science 11: 129-41.
146. Kollman, Kenneth, John Miller, and Scott Page. 1992. “Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections.” American Political Science Review 86: 929-37.
147. Kramer, Richard. 1977. “A Dynamic Model of Political Equilibrium.” Journal of Economic Theory 16: 310-34.
148. Lacy, Dean, and Barry Burden. 1999. “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 United States Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 233-55.
149. Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 1998. “Downsian Voting and Separation of Powers.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1180-99.
150. Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 2001. “Downsian Voting and Separation of Powers in the 1998 Texas and Ohio Gubernatorial Elections.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 25-28.
151. Laver, Michael, and Ian, Budge, eds. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions in Western Europe. London: Macmillan
152. Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield. 1990. Multiparty Governments: The Politics of Coalitions in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
153. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Shepsle. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
154. Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
155. Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Kevin Chlarson. 2002. “Party, Ideology, Institutions, and the 1995 French Presidential Election.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 489-512.
156. Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Richard Nadeau. 2004. “Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism.” Journal of Politics 66(1): 97-112.
157. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns ofMajoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
158. Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
159. Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma.” American Political Science Review 91: 1-14.
160. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
161. Lin, Tse-min, James M. Enelow, and Han Dorussen. 1999. “Equilibrium in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 98: 59-82.
162. Listhaug, O., S. E. Macdonald, and G. Rabinowitz. 1994a. Ideology and Party Support in Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of Political Research 25: 111-49.
163. Lomborg, Bjorn. 1996. “Adaptive Parties in a Multiparty, Multidimensional System with Imperfect Information.” Unpublished manuscript.
164. Londregan, John, and Thomas Romer. 1993. “Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote.” In Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, edited by William A. Barnett, Melvin Hinich, and Norman Schofield. New York: Cambridge University Press.
165. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and George Rabinowitz. 1998. “Solving the Paradox of Nonconvergence: Valence, Position, and Direction in Democratic Politics.” Electoral Studies 17: 281-300.
166. Markus, Gregory A., and Philip E. Converse. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055-70.
167. Martin, Andrew, and Kevin Quinn. 2000. “An Integrated Computational Model of Multiparty Electoral Competition.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4.
168. McCuen, Brian, and Rebecca Morton. 2002. “Tactical Coalition Voting.” Unpublished manuscript.
169. McGann, Anthony. 2002. “The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion: A Model of Constituency Representation and Electoral Competition in Multiparty Democracies.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14: 37-70.
170. McGann, Anthony, Bernard Grofman, and William Koetzle. 2003. “Why Party Leaders Are More Extreme Than Their Members: Modeling Sequential Elimination Elections in the United States House of Representatives.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15: 337-56.
171. McGann, Anthony, William Koetzle, and Bernard Grofman. 2002. “How an Ideologically Concentrated Minority Can Trump a Dispersed Majority: Non-Median Voter Results for Plurality, Runoff, and Sequential Elimination Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 134-48.
172. McKelvey, Richard. 1986. “Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 30: 282-314.
173. Merrill, Samuel III, and James Adams. 2001. “Computing Nash Equilibria in Probabilistic, Multiparty Spatial Models with Nonpolicy Components.” Political Analysis 9: 347-61.
174. Merrill, Samuel III, and James Adams. 2002. “Centrifugal Incentives in MultiCandidate Elections.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14: 273-300.
175. Merrill, Samuel III, and Bernard Grofman. 1997. “Directional and Proximity Spatial Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 25-48.
176. Merrill, Samuel III, and Bernard Grofman. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
177. Merrill, Samuel III, Bernard Grofman, and James Adams. 2001. “Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Voter Projections of Party Locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the United States.” European Journal of Political Research 40: 199-223.
178. Miller, Gary, and Norman Schofield. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97: 245-60.
179. Mitchell, D. W. 1987. “Candidate Behavior under Mixed Motives.” Social Choice and Welfare 4: 153-60.
180. Moon, Woojin. In press. “Party Activists, Campaign Resources, and Candidate Position Taking in United States Senate Elections, 1974-2000: Theory and Tests.” British Journal of Political Science.
181. Muller, Wolfgang, and Kaare Strom, eds. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
182. Nagel, Jack. 2001. “Center-Party Strength and Major-Party Polarization in Britain.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2.
183. Ordeshook, Peter. 1969. “Theory of Electoral Process.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Rochester.
184. Ortega, James M. 1972. Numerical Analysis. New York: Academic Press.
185. Owen, Guillermo, and Bernard Grofman. 1984. “Coalitions and Power in Political Situations.” In Coalitions and Collective Action, edited by Manfred Holler. Wuerzburg: Physica-Verlag.
186. Owen, Guillermo, and Bernard Grofman. 1995. “Two-Stage Electoral Competition in Two-Party Contests: Persistent Divergence of Party Positions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Long Beach, CA, March 24-26.
187. Page, Benjamin. 1976. “The Theory of Political Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 70: 742-52.
188. Page, Benjamin, and Calvin Jones. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73: 1071-89.
189. Palfrey, Thomas. 1984. “Spatial Equilibrium with Entry.” Review of Economic Studies 51: 139-56.
190. Parducci, Allen, and Louise M. Marshall. 1962. “Assimilation v. Contrast in the Anchoring of Perceptual Judgments of Weight.” Journal ofExperimental Psychology 63: 426-37.
191. Pierce, Roy. 1995. Choosing the Chief: Presidential Elections in France and the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
192. Pierce, Roy. 1996. “French Presidential Election Study, 1988” [computer file]. ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Roy Pierce, University of Michigan [producer], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996.
193. Piven, Frances, and Richard Cloward. 1988. Why Americans Don’t Vote. New York: Pantheon.
194. Polsby, Nelson. 1980. Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
195. Powell, G. Bingham. 1989. “Constitutional Design and Citizen Electoral Control.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 1: 107-30.
196. Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
197. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 89: 93-121.
198. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Macdonald. 1998. “On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can’t Be Helped.” Journal of Politics 60: 653-90.
199. Riker, William. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
200. Riker, William, and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62: 25-42.
201. Riker, William, and Peter Ordeshook. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
202. Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 737-58.
203. Roemer, John. 2001. Political Competition: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
204. Rose, Richard, and Ian McAllister. 1990. The Loyalties of Voters: A Lifetime Learning Model. London: Sage.
205. Safran, William. 1998. The French Polity, 5th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
206. Sanders, Mitchell. 1998. “Unified Models of Turnout and Vote Choice for Two- Candidate and Three-Candidate Elections.” Political Analysis 7: 89-116.
207. Sanders, Mitchell. 2001. “Uncertainty and Turnout.” Political Analysis 9: 45-57.
208. Sartori, Giovanni. 1968. “Representational Systems.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 13: 470-5.
209. Schofield, Norman. 1978. “Instability of Simple Dynamic Games.” Review of Economic Studies 45: 575-94.
210. Schofield, Norman. 1996. “The Heart of a Polity.” In Collective Decision-Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, edited by Norman Schofield. Boston: Kluwer.
211. Schofield, Norman. 2002. “Existence of a General Political Equilibrium.” Unpublished manuscript.
212. Schofield, Norman. 2003. “Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15: 371-84.
213. Schofield, Norman. 2004. “Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘Valence’ Model of Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16: 447-81.
214. Schofield, Norman, Andrew Martin, Kevin Quinn, and Andrew Whitford. 1998. “Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit.” Public Choice 97: 257-93.
215. Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened. 2003. “Multiparty Competition in Israel: 1992-1996.” Unpublished manuscript.
216. Schofield, Norman, Itai Sened, and David Nixon. 1998. “Nash Equilibria in Multiparty Competition with ‘Stochastic’ Voters.” Annals of Operations Research 84: 3-27.
217. Shepsle, Kenneth. 1991. Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.
218. Sherif, M., and C. Hovland. 1961. Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
219. Snyder, James, and Michael Chang. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 9-110.
220. Stokes, Donald. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57: 368-77.
221. Stokes, Susan. 1999. “What Do Policy Switches Tell Us about Democracy?” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, edited by Adam Przeworski, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
222. Strom, Kaare, and Lars Svasand, eds. 1997. Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
223. Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
224. Thurner, Paul, and Angelika Eymann. 2000. “Policy-Specific Alienation and Indifference in the Calculus of Voting: A Simultaneous Model of Party Choice and Abstention.” Public Choice 102: 51-77.
225. Train, Kenneth. 1986. Qualitative Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
226. Urwin, Derek. 1997. “The Norwegian Party System from the 1880s to the 1990s.” In Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway, edited by Kaare Strom and Lars Svasand. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
227. Valen, Henry. 1990. “The Storting Election of 1989: Polarization and Protest.” Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 27-90.
228. van der Eijk, Cornelis, and Broer Niemioller. 1983. Electoral Change in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press.
229. Warwick, Paul. 2004. “Proximity, Directionality, and the Riddle of Relative Party Extremeness.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16: 263-87.
230. Weisberg, Herbert, and Bernard Grofman. 1981. “Candidate Evaluations and Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly 9: 197-219.
231. Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72: 535-47.
232. Westholm, Anders. 1997. “Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of Proximity Theory.” American Political Science Review 91: 865-83.
233. Wittman, Donald. 1973. “Parties as Utility Maximizers.” American Political Science Review 67: 490-8.
234. Wittman, Donald. 1977. “Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model.” Journal ofEconomic Theory 14: 180-9.
235. Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternatives.” American Political Science Review 77: 142-57.
236. Wittman, Donald. 1990. “Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, edited by James Enelow and Melvin Hinich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
237. Wolfinger, Raymond, and Steven Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
238. Wuffle, A., Scott Feld, and Guillermo Owen. 1989. “Finagle’s Law and the Finagle Point: A New Solution Concept for Two-Candidate Competition in Spatial Voting Games.” American Journal of Political Science 33: 348-75.
239. Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.