Suchergebnisse

We study the effect of anti-immigrant sentiments among voters on the equilibrium position of political parties on the economic issue. We model political competition as taking place among three parties (Left, Right, and Extreme Right) on a two-dimensional policy space (economic issue, immigration issue) using an extension of the Party Unanimity Nash Equilibrium concept. We "calibrate" the model to French survey data for the election years 1988 and 2002, and show that the immigration issue influences equilibrium on the economic issue in a significant way. ; Nous nous proposons d'étudier l'impact que le sentiment anti-immigrés de certains électeurs est susceptible d'avoir sur les propositions que font les partis en matière de politique économique. Nous modélisons la compétition électorale comme ayant lieu entre trois partis (la Gauche, la Droite et l'Extrême-Droite) et portant essentiellement sur deux dimensions (la taille du secteur public et l'immigration). Nous " calibrons " le modèle en utilisant des données d'enquêtes menées durant les années d'élections présidentielles 1988 et 2002, et montrons que l'influence des questions liées à l'immigration sur la taille du secteur public est loin d'être négligeable.

For the first time in many years, a conservative government came to power in Denmark in 2001, due primarily to the citizenry's dissatisfaction with social-democratic policies on immigartion. We represent political competition in denmark as taking place on two issues -- the size of the public sector and immigration -- and model political equilibrium using the party-unanimity- Nash-equilibrium concept (PUNE), which generates equilibria on multi-dimensional policy spaces where parties form endogenously. By fitting the model to Danish data, we argue that citizen xenophobia may be expected to decrease the size of the Danish public sector by an amount equal to one-half of a standard deviation of the probability distribution of citizens' views as to what the optimal size of public sector is. ; Pour la première fois depuis de nombreuses années, un gouvernement conservateur a accédé au pouvoir au Danemark en 2001, en partie à cause de l'insatisfaction des électeurs quant aux politiques d'immigration menées par les socio-démocrates. On décrit la compétition électorale au Danemark comme portant esentiellement sur deux questions majeures -- la taille du secteur public et l'immigration -- et modélise l'équilibre politique à l'aide du concept de PUNE (Party Unanimity Nash Equilibrium), qui permet d'obtenir des équilibres dans des espaces politiques multi-dimensionnels lorsque les partis se forment de manière endogène. En calibrant le modèle sur des données électorales danoises, on montre que la xenophobie est susceptible de réduire la taille du secteur public danois d'un montant équivalent à la moitié de l'écart-type de la distribution de probabilité des opinions des électeurs danois concernant la taille idéale du secteur public.

We study the effect of anti-immigrant sentiments among voters on the equilibrium position of political parties on the economic issue. We model political competition as taking place among three parties (Left, Right, and Extreme Right) on a two-dimensional policy space (economic issue, immigration issue) using an extension of the Party Unanimity Nash Equilibrium concept. We "calibrate" the model to French survey data for the election years 1988 and 2002, and show that the immigration issue influences equilibrium on the economic issue in a significant way. ; Nous nous proposons d'étudier l'impact que le sentiment anti-immigrés de certains électeurs est susceptible d'avoir sur les propositions que font les partis en matière de politique économique. Nous modélisons la compétition électorale comme ayant lieu entre trois partis (la Gauche, la Droite et l'Extrême-Droite) et portant essentiellement sur deux dimensions (la taille du secteur public et l'immigration). Nous " calibrons " le modèle en utilisant des données d'enquêtes menées durant les années d'élections présidentielles 1988 et 2002, et montrons que l'influence des questions liées à l'immigration sur la taille du secteur public est loin d'être négligeable.

For the first time in many years, a conservative government came to power in Denmark in 2001, due primarily to the citizenry's dissatisfaction with social-democratic policies on immigartion. We represent political competition in denmark as taking place on two issues -- the size of the public sector and immigration -- and model political equilibrium using the party-unanimity- Nash-equilibrium concept (PUNE), which generates equilibria on multi-dimensional policy spaces where parties form endogenously. By fitting the model to Danish data, we argue that citizen xenophobia may be expected to decrease the size of the Danish public sector by an amount equal to one-half of a standard deviation of the probability distribution of citizens' views as to what the optimal size of public sector is. ; Pour la première fois depuis de nombreuses années, un gouvernement conservateur a accédé au pouvoir au Danemark en 2001, en partie à cause de l'insatisfaction des électeurs quant aux politiques d'immigration menées par les socio-démocrates. On décrit la compétition électorale au Danemark comme portant esentiellement sur deux questions majeures -- la taille du secteur public et l'immigration -- et modélise l'équilibre politique à l'aide du concept de PUNE (Party Unanimity Nash Equilibrium), qui permet d'obtenir des équilibres dans des espaces politiques multi-dimensionnels lorsque les partis se forment de manière endogène. En calibrant le modèle sur des données électorales danoises, on montre que la xenophobie est susceptible de réduire la taille du secteur public danois d'un montant équivalent à la moitié de l'écart-type de la distribution de probabilité des opinions des électeurs danois concernant la taille idéale du secteur public.

L'objet de cet article est d'offrir une présentation synthétique des principaux travaux théoriques et empiriques portant sur la formation des coalitions électorales et gouvernementales et utilisant comme socle méthodologique la théorie des jeux coopératifs avec ou sans utilité transférable.

We propose a theory of strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: A fixed number M of candidates are to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants; the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.Best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.The theory is tested on individual data from the 2011 Regional Government election in Zurich.

We propose a theory of strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: A fixed number M of candidates are to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants; the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.Best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.The theory is tested on individual data from the 2011 Regional Government election in Zurich.

We propose a theory of strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: A fixed number M of candidates are to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants; the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.Best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.The theory is tested on individual data from the 2011 Regional Government election in Zurich.

We propose a theory of strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: A fixed number M of candidates are to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants; the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.Best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.The theory is tested on individual data from the 2011 Regional Government election in Zurich.

We propose a theory of strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: A fixed number M of candidates are to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants; the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.Best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.The theory is tested on individual data from the 2011 Regional Government election in Zurich.

We propose a theory of strategic voting under "Commitee Approval": a fixed-sized commitee of M members is to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants, and the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.We show that best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.

We propose a theory of strategic voting under "Commitee Approval": a fixed-sized commitee of M members is to be elected; each voter votes for as many candidates as she wants, and the M candidates with the most votes are elected. We assume that voter preferences are separable and that there exists a tiny probability that any vote might be misrecorded.We show that best responses involve voting by pairwise comparisons. Two candidates play a critical role: the weakest expected winner and the strongest expected loser. Expected winners are approved if and only if they are preferred to the strongest expected loser and expected losers are approved if and only if they are preferred to the weakest expected winner.At equilibrium, if any, a candidate is elected if and only if he is approved by at least half of the voters. With single-peaked preferences, an equilibrium always exists, in which the first M candidates according to the majority tournament relation are elected.