Suchergebnisse

The paper proposes a theory of ambiguous electoral competition. A platform is ambigous if voters may interpret it as different policy proposals. An ambiguous platform puts more or less emphasis on alternative policies so that it is more or less easily interpreted as one policy or the other. I suppose that a party can monitor exactly this platform design but cannot target its communications to individuals one by one. Each individual votes according to her understanding of the parties' platforms but dislikes ambiguity. It is shown that this electoral competition has no Nash equilibrium. Nevertheless its max-min strategies are the optimal strategies of the Downsian game in mixed strategies. Furthermore, if parties behave prudently enough and if the voters aversion to ambiguity is small enough, these strategies do form an equilibrium. ; L'article propose une théorie de la compétition électorale ambigüe. Une plate-forme est ambigüe si les votants peuvent l'interpréter de différentes manières. Une telle plate-forme met plus ou moins de poids sur sur les différentes options possibles de sorte qu'elle est plus ou moins facilement interprétée comme une politique ou une autre. On fait l'hypothèse que les partis politiques peuvent contrôler exactement leurs plate-formes mais ne peuvent pas cibler celles-ci vers les votants individuellement. Chaque électeur vote d'après son interprétation des plate-formes des partis mais est averse à l'ambiguité. On montre que ce jeu de compétition électorale n'a pas d'équilibre de Nash. Cependant ses stratégies max-min sont les stratégies optimales du jeu Downsien en stratégies mixtes. De plus, si les partis se comportent de manière suffisament prudente par rapport à l'aversion pour l'ambiguité des électeurs, ces mêmes stratégies forment un équilibre.

The paper proposes a theory of ambiguous electoral competition. A platform is ambigous if voters may interpret it as different policy proposals. An ambiguous platform puts more or less emphasis on alternative policies so that it is more or less easily interpreted as one policy or the other. I suppose that a party can monitor exactly this platform design but cannot target its communications to individuals one by one. Each individual votes according to her understanding of the parties' platforms but dislikes ambiguity. It is shown that this electoral competition has no Nash equilibrium. Nevertheless its max-min strategies are the optimal strategies of the Downsian game in mixed strategies. Furthermore, if parties behave prudently enough and if the voters aversion to ambiguity is small enough, these strategies do form an equilibrium. ; L'article propose une théorie de la compétition électorale ambigüe. Une plate-forme est ambigüe si les votants peuvent l'interpréter de différentes manières. Une telle plate-forme met plus ou moins de poids sur sur les différentes options possibles de sorte qu'elle est plus ou moins facilement interprétée comme une politique ou une autre. On fait l'hypothèse que les partis politiques peuvent contrôler exactement leurs plate-formes mais ne peuvent pas cibler celles-ci vers les votants individuellement. Chaque électeur vote d'après son interprétation des plate-formes des partis mais est averse à l'ambiguité. On montre que ce jeu de compétition électorale n'a pas d'équilibre de Nash. Cependant ses stratégies max-min sont les stratégies optimales du jeu Downsien en stratégies mixtes. De plus, si les partis se comportent de manière suffisament prudente par rapport à l'aversion pour l'ambiguité des électeurs, ces mêmes stratégies forment un équilibre.

Electoral competition between two expert candidates may lead to inefficient platform choices. The present paper studies electoral competition between two experts and a third uninformed candidate. The latter behaves populistically. This seemingly useless candidate restores efficiency. The paper then endogenizes information acquisition. If the information acquisition costs are low, then equilibria with (i) three expert candidates or (ii) two experts and one uninformed candidate may arise. There are costs such that the latter equilibrium is the only pure strategy equilibrium in which information is transmitted. Adapted from the source document.

Many have observed that political candidates running for election are often purposefully expressing themselves in vague and ambiguous terms. In this paper, we provide a simple formal model of this phenomenon. We model the electoral competition between two candidates as a two-stage game. In the first stage of the game, two candidates simultaneously choose their ideologies, in the second stage, they simultaneously choose their levels of ambiguity. Ambiguity, although disliked by voters, may be sustained in equilibrium. More interestingly, we provide insight into the causes for ideological differentiation by showing that politicians may wish to differentiate themselves ideologically so that they can afford to become more ambiguous.

Many have observed that political candidates running for election are often purposefully expressing themselves in vague & ambiguous terms. In this paper, we provide a simple formal model of this phenomenon. We model the electoral competition between two candidates as a two-stage game. In the first stage of the game, two candidates simultaneously choose their ideologies; in the second stage, they simultaneously choose their levels of ambiguity. Ambiguity, although disliked by voters, may be sustained in equilibrium. More interestingly, we provide insight into the causes for ideological differentiation by showing that politicians may wish to differentiate themselves ideologically so that they can afford to become more ambiguous. 1 Table, 2 Figures, 1 Appendix, 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

We study a one-dimensional Hotelling-Downs model of electoral competition with the following innovation: a fraction of candidates have "character" and are exogenously committed to a campaign platform; this is unobservable to voters. Character is desirable, and a voter's utility is a convex combination of standard policy preferences and her assessment of a candidate's character. This structure induces a signaling game between strategic candidates and voters, since a policy platform affects voters' utilities not only directly, but also indirectly through inferences about a candidate's character. The model generates a number of predictions, starting with a failure of the median voter theorem. (JEL D72, D82)

Many have observed that political candidates running for election are often purposefully expressing themselves in vague and ambiguous terms. Moreover, the candidates' ambiguity typically involves precisely those issues which stand in the center of public debate. In this paper, we provide a simple formal model of this phenomenon. We assume that candidates prefer to be ambiguous, at least as long as it does not impair their chances to be elected. One reason for their preference for ambiguity is that the more ambiguous a candidate is, the less he is committed to specific policies when in office, and the more freedom he has when confroting unforeseen contingencies. We model the electoral competition between two candidates as a two-stage game. In the first stage of the game, the candidates simultaneously choose their ideologies, and in the second stage of the game, they simulataneously choose their level of ambiguity. Our results show that an equilibrium always exists, and the two candidates always choose the same level of strategic ambiguity. We find that for certain ranges of parameter values, both candidates will express themselves in ambiguous terms. More interestingly, the candidates may find it advantageous to differentiate themselves ideologically. Thus, we show the existence of an equilibrium where one candidate chooses, say, a "leftist" ideology, the other candidate chooses a "centrist" ideology and both candidates remain vague regarding their future policies in case they win the election.

This paper considers a model of elections in which parties compete simultaneously for multiple districts. I show that if districts are heterogeneous, then a unique two-party equilibrium exists under plurality rule in which further entry is deterred. The equilibrium requires that parties choose noncentrist policy platforms & not converge to the ideal policy of the median voter. These characteristics are consistent with empirical observation, in contrast to those of single-district models. Necessary & sufficient conditions for the existence of the equilibrium are then characterized & related to Duverger's law. The existence of multiple-party equilibria in this environment is also considered. Tables, Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.

"We model a two-candidate electoral competition in which there is uncertainty about a policy-relevant state of the world. The candidates receive private signals about the true state, which are imperfectly correlated. We study whether the candidates are able to credibly communicate their information to voters through their choice of policy platforms. Our results show that the fact that private information is dispersed between the candidates creates a strong incentive for them to bias their messages toward the electorate's prior. Information transmission becomes more difficult, the more the information is dispersed between the candidates and the stronger is the electorate's prior. Indeed, as more prior information becomes available, welfare can decrease." (author's abstract)

A mathematical model is constructed to predict the risk-taking behavior of candidates competing for political office. In two-candidate plurality rule races, it is assumed that candidates simply want to get 50+% of the vote without caring whether their winning margin is large or small, & are uncertain about how political strategies translate into votes. The model predicts that, in selecting among options with the same potential vote share, the favorite will take as few chances as possible, while the underdog will choose the highest risk option. Should the risk pay off, the candidate could win; if the strategy fails, he/she is no worse off than had defeat been caused by other factors. There is a "knife edge" at 50% of the expected vote where a candidate shifts from the riskiest to the safest strategy. The model's predictions prove broadly consistent with the results of various empirical studies of politicians' electoral strategies. Under voting rules other than plurality, the model predicts that the "knife edge" effect will remain under supermajorities, appear in modified form in plurality rule with more than two candidates & in approval voting, & disappear under some forms of proportional representation. The normative implications of the model are discussed. 4 Figures, 28 References. Adapted from the source document.