The Importance of the Median Voter

Similar documents
EC3224 Autumn Lecture #03 Applications of Nash Equilibrium

Intro Prefs & Voting Electoral comp. Political Economics. Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich. Summer term / 37

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Department of Economics Economics 754 Topics in Political Economy Fall 2005 Allan Drazen. Exercise Set I

Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 2: Strategic-Form Games and Nash Equilibrium (2)

Spatial Competition Between Two Candidates of Different Quality: The Effects of Candidate Ideology and Private Information 1

Economic Policies of Heterogeneous Politicians

Centre de Referència en Economia Analítica

Multiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy.

Duverger s Law Without Strategic Voting

Repeated Downsian Electoral Competition

Political Economy of Institutions and Development. Lectures 2 and 3: Static Voting Models

A Dynamic Model of Democratic Elections in Multidimensional Policy Spaces

Introduction to Formal Epistemology Lecture 5

Political Cycles and Stock Returns. Pietro Veronesi

Research Methods in Political Science I

ANSWER KEY 2 GAME THEORY, ECON 395

When is the median voter paradigm a reasonable. guide for policy choices in a representative democracy? *

Economics 3012 Strategic Behavior Andy McLennan October 20, 2006

When is the median voter paradigm a reasonable. guide for policy choices in a representative democracy? *

On the influence of extreme parties in electoral competition with policy-motivated candidates

Power, Ideology, and Electoral Competition

Electoral Competition with Privately Informed Candidates. (Preliminary)

Electoral Platforms, Implemented Policies, and Abstention

14.770: Introduction to Political Economy Lectures 1 and 2: Collective Choice and Voting

Political Economy of Institutions and Development: Problem Set 1. Due Date: Thursday, February 23, in class.

A political-economy model of taxation and government expenditures with differentiated candidates

Estimating Dynamic Games of Electoral Competition to Evaluate Term Limits in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections: Online Appendix

Finite Dictatorships and Infinite Democracies

Do Government Audits Reduce Corruption? Estimating the Impacts of Exposing Corrupt Politicians

Introduction to spatial modeling. (a mostly geometrical presentation)

The Case for Responsible Parties

Cycles in Public Opinion and the Dynamics of Stable Party Systems

NOWCASTING THE OBAMA VOTE: PROXY MODELS FOR 2012

A Reputational Theory of Two-Party Competition

Partisan Politics and Aggregation Failure with Ignorant Voters

Advanced Quantitative Research Methodology Lecture Notes: January Ecological 28, 2012 Inference1 / 38

A Survey of Equilibrium Analysis in Spatial Models of Elections

ELECTORAL CONTROL AND SELECTION WITH PARTIES AND PRIMARIES

Polling and sampling. Clement de Chaisemartin and Douglas G. Steigerwald UCSB

C31: Game Theory, Lecture 1

SPATIAL VOTING (MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS)

Intro Prefs & Voting Electoral comp. Voter Turnout Agency GIP SIP Rent seeking Partisans. 7. Special-interest politics

Candidate valence in a spatial model with entry

The Causal Inference Problem and the Rubin Causal Model

A finite exact algorithm for epsilon-core membership in two dimensions

BATH ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPERS

Centre de Referència en Economia Analítica

Games and Economic Behavior

Online Appendix to The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis Not For Publication

Ideology and Competence in Alternative Electoral Systems.

Sampling Distribution Models. Central Limit Theorem

Spatial Theory in 2-space Fall 2016

SPATIAL VOTING (MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS)

An equity-efficiency trade-off in a geometric approach to committee selection Daniel Eckert and Christian Klamler

Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger s Law.

Carolyn Anderson & YoungShil Paek (Slide contributors: Shuai Wang, Yi Zheng, Michael Culbertson, & Haiyan Li)

Approval Voting: Three Examples

Electoral Politics with Policy Adjustment Costs

Algorithmic Game Theory Introduction to Mechanism Design

Supporting Information. Controlling the Airwaves: Incumbency Advantage and. Community Radio in Brazil

The pro-competitive effect of campaign limits in non-majoritarian elections

Introduction to Statistical Data Analysis Lecture 4: Sampling

Candidate location and endogenous valence. Economics Education and Research Consortium Working Paper Series ISSN No 05/17.

Supplemental Appendix to "Alternative Assumptions to Identify LATE in Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Designs"

Survey of Voting Procedures and Paradoxes

MATH 19-02: HW 5 TUFTS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS SPRING 2018

On the Strategy-proof Social Choice of Fixed-sized Subsets

Discussion Paper Series

A Dynamic Duverger s Law

POLI 7050 Spring 2008 February 27, 2008 Unordered Response Models I

Poisson Games, Strategic Candidacy, and Duverger s Law

Negative Voters? Electoral Competition with Loss-Aversion

Lobbying and Policy Extremism in Repeated Elections

Power Sharing and Electoral Equilibrium

Growing competition in electricity industry and the power source structure

Regression Discontinuity

Dependence and Independence in Social Choice Theory

Information Cascades in Social Networks via Dynamic System Analyses

1 Introduction. Retrieved Labour obtained 27.6% of the vote in the 1983 election, down 9 points from their 1980 defeat.

Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting 1

Meet the Press: How Voters and Politicians Respond to Newspaper Entry and Exit Online Appendix

Signal Extraction in Economics

Multiple Equilibria in Tullock Contests

Chapter 1. The Mathematics of Voting

Antipodality in committee selection. Abstract

FORM-20 [See Rule 56 (7) ] FINAL RESULT SHEET

Nontransitive Dice and Arrow s Theorem

2007/84. Dialogue or issue divergence in the political campaign? Pablo Amoros and M. Socorro Puy

Strategy-proof social choice on multiple singlepeaked domains and preferences for parties

Information Revelation and Pandering in Elections

Chapter 12: Model Specification and Development

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Nash on a Rotary WPS7701. Policy Research Working Paper Two Theorems with Implications for Electoral Politics. Kaushik Basu Tapan Mitra

Entry under an Information-Gathering Monopoly Alex Barrachina* June Abstract

An alternative approach to valence advantage in spatial competition.

Loss Aversion in Politics Supplementary Material Online Appendix

Game Theory Fall 2003

3 Additional Applications of the Derivative

Supplement for In Search of the Holy Grail: Policy Convergence, Experimentation and Economic Performance Sharun W. Mukand and Dani Rodrik

Game theory lecture 4. September 24, 2012

Transcription:

The Importance of the Median Voter According to Duncan Black and Anthony Downs V53.0500 NYU 1

Committee Decisions utility 0 100 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 V53.0500 NYU 2

Single-Peakedness Condition The preferences of group members are said to be single peaked if the alternatives under consideration can be represented as points on a line, and each of the utility functions representing preferences over these alternatives has a maximum at some point on the line and slopes away from this maximum on either side. V53.0500 NYU 3

utility Ms. 5 has single-peaked preferences, Mr. 1 does not u 1 0 100 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 V53.0500 NYU 4

Ms. 5 s preferred to y set utility P 5 0 y=80 Z=92100 V53.0500 NYU x 5 5

Each actor has single peaked preferences utility u 2 u 1 0 100 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 V53.0500 NYU 6

And a preferred to y set utility u 2 u 1 0 x y 100 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 P 3 P 4 V53.0500 NYU 7 P 1 P 5

The winset of y contains the alternatives that can win a contest against y utility u 2 u 1 0 x y 100 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 P 3 P 4 V53.0500 NYU 8 P 1 P 5

Under majority rule a winset is the set of outcomes preferred by a majority utility u 2 u 1 0 x y 100 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 P 3 P 4 V53.0500 NYU 9 P 1 P 5

In this case, the winset of y is the same as utility P 3 u 2 u 1 0 x y 100 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 P 3 P 4 V53.0500 NYU 10 P 1 P 5

So, if Ms.3, Mr.4, or Ms.5 are allowed to make a proposal, what will they propose? utility u 2 u 1 0 x y 100 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 P 3 P 4 V53.0500 NYU 11 P 1 P 5

Black s Median Voter Theorem If members of a group G have singlepeaked preferences, then the ideal point of the median voter has an empty winset V53.0500 NYU 12

Ms.3 s ideal point has an empty winset utility u 2 u 1 P 3 (x 3 )=ø 0 100 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 P 2 (x 3 ) P 4 (x 3 ) V53.0500 NYU 13 P 1 (x 3 ) P 5 (x3)

A Model of an Election An electorate has to elect a chief executive and There are 2 candidates Voters have single-peaked preferences that can be arrayed along a one-dimensional ideological continuum that is the proportion of economic activity left in the hands of the private sector. And they vote for candidate with expected policy closest to their ideal point. Candidates only want to get elected V53.0500 NYU 14

Order of Moves 1. Candidate 1 announces her policy position (y 1 ) 2. Candidate 2 announces his policy position (x 1 ) 3. All voters vote WHAT HAPPENS? V53.0500 NYU 15

utility Lets examine a case where there are 5 (equally sized ) groups of voters, such that all members of a group have the same preferences u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 16

utility What does Candidate 1 do? Lets say she is the incumbent and her position is viewed by the electorate as the weighted average of all her prior actions, and this happens to be at y 1 u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 17 y 1

What is candidate 2 s best response to 1 s record? utility u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 18 y 1

A position just to the right of the incumbent will get candidate 375 votes, leaving 250 for candidate 1 utility u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G y 1 2 y G 3 G 4 G 2 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 19

utility But in our model, Candidate 1 s policy is up to her, so she would choose her policy to make the two group of voters on each side of her the same size u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 20 y 1

utility But in our model, Candidate 1 s policy is up to her, so she would choose her policy to make the two group of voters on each side of her the same size u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 21 y 1

utility When she chooses a policy position (or, as the incumbent, implements a policy) that is equal to the median voter, there are 250 voters on each side of her u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 22 y 1

Candidate 2 s best response is also to adopt the median voter s position, at which point, the elections is, effectively, tied utility u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 23 y 2 y 1

utility This result does not depend on the distribution of voters into these groups. Different distributions will change where the median voter is and what policy gets implemented, but will not alter the centrifugal tendencies of the system u 2u1 y 2 y 1 0 G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 100 (300) (5) (5) (5) (310) V53.0500 NYU 24

utility If a third party candidate observed this and was allowed to enter the race se would adopt a position just to the left of the median voter, she s get 250 votes and 1 and 2 would each get 372/2 u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 25 y 3 y 2 y 1

But 1 and 2 might foresee this and adopt policies that are just far enough from median voter to deter entry utility u 2u1 y y 2 1 0 G y 100 1 G 3 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 26

utility For example, if y 1 chose G2 s ideal point and y 2 chose G 4 s ideal point, there s no where y 3 to enter with any chance to win u 2u1 y y 2 1 0 G y 100 1 G 3 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 27

What if candidates cared about policy? Calvert (1985)showed that they d act exactly like pure office-seekers V53.0500 NYU 28

What if candidates cared about policy? Calvert (1985)showed that they d act exactly like pure office-seekers V53.0500 NYU 29

Lets say 1 is a socialist and 2 is a capitalist. 1 wants policy 1*, 2 wants policy 2* utility u 2u1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 1* 2* (125) (125) (125) (125) (125) V53.0500 NYU 30

If 1 implements 1*, 2 can win the next election by proposing a policy in G 3 s preferred to 1* set utility u 2 u 1 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 1* 2* (125)(125) (125) (125) (125) P G3 (1*) V53.0500 NYU 31

This sets off a logic that leads these socialists and capitalist to both propose moderate policies. utility u 2 u 1 y 1 y 2 0 G 100 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 1* 2* (125)(125) (125) (125) (125) P G3 (1*) V53.0500 NYU 32

When politics is singledimensional, the median voter rules We get some separation because of entry deterrence It doesn t matter whether candidates are policy-oriented or office-seeking. These results depend crucially on the assumption that everybody votes V53.0500 NYU 33