Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T01:01:58.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidate Entry and Political Polarization: An Experimental Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

JENS GROßER  and
THOMAS R. PALFREY
JENS GROßER*
Affiliation:
Florida State University
THOMAS R. PALFREY*
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
*
*Jens Großer, Associate Professor, Departments of Political Science and Economics, Florida State University, [email protected].
†Thomas R. Palfrey, Professor, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report the results of a laboratory experiment based on a citizen–candidate model with private information about ideal points. Inefficient political polarization is observed in all treatments; that is, citizens with extreme ideal points enter as candidates more often than moderate citizens. Second, less entry occurs, with even greater polarization, when voters have directional information about candidates’ ideal points, using ideological party labels. Nonetheless, this directional information is welfare enhancing because the inefficiency from greater polarization is outweighed by lower entry expenses and better voter information. Third, entry rates are decreasing in group size and the entry cost. These findings are all implied by properties of the unique symmetric Bayesian equilibrium cutpoint pair of the entry game. Quantitatively, we observe too little (too much) entry when the theoretical entry rates are high (low). This general pattern of observed biases in entry rates is implied by logit quantal response equilibrium.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 209 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank participants at the Public Policy and Social & Economic Behavior Conference, Cologne; 1st Southwest Experimental and Behavioral Economics Conference, UC Irvine; North-American ESA meeting, Tucson; Venice Political Economy Conference; 7th Social Dilemmas Meeting, UMass; Behavioral Models of Politics Conference, Duke; and at seminars at Beijing Normal, Bocconi, Caltech, Columbia, USC, and UQAM for their helpful comments. Großer acknowledges support from the CEC-COFRS Award, Florida State University. Palfrey acknowledges support from NSF (SES-1426560), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (SES-1158), and a Russell Sage Foundation Visiting Scholar Fellowship (2014–15). Replication materials can be found on Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EDRAIQ.

References

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members of Congress.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephan. 1997. “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, Damien, Dellis, Arnaud, and Oak, Mandar. 2016. “Comparison of Voting Procedures Using Models of Electoral Competition with Endogenous Candidacy.” In The Political Economy of Social Choice, eds. Gallego, M. and Schofield, N.. Heidelberg: Springer, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, Damien, Dellis, Arnaud, and Oak, Mandar. 2017. “Candidatures Endogènes dans les Elections Pluralitaires: Quelques Explications du Nombre de Candidats et de leur Polarisation.” L’Actualité Economique 93 (1–2): 141–71.Google Scholar
Cadigan, John. 2005. “The Citizen Candidate Model: An Experimental Analysis.” Public Choice 123 (1–2): 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin, and Lovallo, Dan. 1999. “Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach.” American Economic Review 89 (1): 306–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Strokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Evans, John, and Bryson, Bethany. 1996. “Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology 102 (3): 690–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Elbittar, Alexander, and Gomberg, Andrei. 2009. “An Experimental Study of the Citizen-Candidate Model.” In The Political Economy of Democracy, eds. Aragonés, E., Beviá, C., Llavador, H., and Bilbao, N. Schofield., Spain: Fundación BBVA, 31–46.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J. 1992. “A Voting Model Implying Duverger’s Law and Positive Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (4): 938–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., Sened, Itai, and Wright, Stephen G.. 1990. “Rational Voting and Candidate Entry Under Plurality Rule.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1005–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. 2nd edition. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs, and Thöni, Christian. 2008. “Excess Entry in an Experimental Winner-Take-All Market.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67 (1): 150–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, Jacob K., and Holt, Charles A.. 2005. “An Explanation of Anomalous Behavior in Models of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 201–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, Jacob K., Holt, Charles A., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2016. Quantal Response Equilibrium: A Stochastic Theory of Games. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greiner, Ben. 2015. “Subject Pool Recruitment Procedures: Organizing Experiments with ORSEE.” Journal of the Economic Science Association 1 (1): 114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Großer, Jens, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2009. “A Citizen Candidate Model with Private Information.” In The Political Economy of Democracy, eds. Aragonés, E., Beviá, C., Llavador, H., and Bilbao, N. S.. Spain: Fundación BBVA: 15–29.Google Scholar
Großer, Jens, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2014. “Candidate Entry and Political Polarization: An Antimedian Voter Theorem.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 127–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, Alan, and Hjortlund, Michael. 2000. “Proportional Representation with Citizen Candidates.” Public Choice 1033 (3–4): 205–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Emanuel. 2014. “Political Competition with Endogenous Party Formation and Citizen Activists.” Working paper. University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39 (153): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, Aaron. 2016. “Plurality Voting versus Proportional Representation in the Citizen-Candidate Model: An Experiment.” Working paper. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Levine, David K., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2007. “The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study.” American Political Science Review 101 (1): 143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2016. Uninformed: Why People Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibrium for Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10 (1): 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “Quantal Response Equilibrium for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics 1 (1): 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, John, Orzen, Henrik, Sefton, Martin, and Sisak, Dana. 2016. “Strategic and Natural Risk in Entrepreneurship: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 25 (2): 420–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortoleva, Pietro, and Snowberg, Erik. 2015. “Overconfidence in Political Behavior.” American Economic Review 105 (2), 504–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Martin J., and Slivinski, Al. 1996. “A Model of Political Competition with Citizen Candidates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R. 1984. “Spatial Equilibrium with Entry.” Review of Economic Studies 51 (1): 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Pevnitskaya, Svetlana. 2008. “Endogenous Entry and Self-Selection in Private Value Auctions: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 66 (3–4): 731–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Poole, Keith T.. 1987. “The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (3): 511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2013. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremeta, Roman M. 2010. “Experimental Comparison of Multi-Stage and One-Stage Contests.” Games and Economic Behavior 68 (2): 731–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ting, Michael M.. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Großer and Palfrey Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EDRAIQ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Großer and Palfrey supplementary material

Großer and Palfrey supplementary material 1

Download Großer and Palfrey supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.3 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.