Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:07:41.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computing Nash Equilibria in Probabilistic, Multiparty Spatial Models with Nonpolicy Components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Samuel Merrill III  and
James Adams
Samuel Merrill III
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766. e-mail: [email protected]://course.wilkes.edu/merrill/
James Adams
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93110. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although there exist extensive results concerning equilibria in spatial models of two-party elections with probabilistic voting, we know far less about equilibria in multiparty elections—i.e., under what conditions will equilibria exist, and what are the characteristics of equilibrium configurations? We derive conditions that guarantee the existence of a unique Nash equilibrium and develop an algorithm to compute that equilibrium inmultiparty elections with probabilistic voting, in which voters choose according to the behaviorists' fully specified multivariate vote model. Previously, such computations could only be approximated by laborious search methods. The algorithm, which assumes a conditional logit choice function, can be applied to spatial competition for a variety of party objectives including vote-maximization and margin-maximization, and can also encompass alternative voter policy metrics such as quadratic and linear loss functions. We show that our conditions for an equilibrium are plausible given the empirically-estimated parameters that behaviorists report for voting behavior in historical elections. We also show that parties' equilibrium positions depend not only on the distribution of voters' policy preferences but also on their nonpolicy-related attributes such as partisanship and sociodemographic variables. Empirical applications to data from a recent French election illustrate the use of the algorithm and suggest that a unique Nash equilibrium existed in that election.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , 2001 , pp. 347 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by the Society for Political Methodology 

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.)

References

Adams, James. 1998. “Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition: The Pressure for Responsible Parties.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 1999. “Multicandidate Spatial Competition with Probabilistic Voting.” Public Choice 99: 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 2000. “Multicandidate Equilibrium in American Elections.” Public Choice 103: 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 2001a. “A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively.” British Journal of Political Science 31: 121–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 2001b. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based upon Insights from Behavioral Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and III, Samuel Merrill. 1999a. “Party Policy Equilibria for Alternative Spatial Voting Models: An Application to the Norwegian Storting.” European Journal of Political Research 36: 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and III, Samuel Merrill. 1999b. “Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why are Strategies So Extreme?” American Journal of Political Science 43: 765–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and III, Samuel Merrill. 2000a. “Spatial Models of Candidate Competition and the 1988 French Presidential Election: Are Presidential Candidates Vote-Maximizers?” Journal of Politics 62(3): 729–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and III, Samuel Merrill. 2000b. “Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Dow, Jay, and III, Samuel Merrill. 2001. “The Political Consequences of Abstention Due to Alienation and Abstention Due to Indifference: Applications to Presidential Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio, TX, March 9–11.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Nagler, Jonathan, and Bowler, Shaun. 2000. “Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The 1997 British General Election.” American Political Science Review 94: 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1994. “A New Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally.” British Journal of Political Science 24: 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis, and Mair, Peter. 1984. “Left-Right Political Scales: Some Expert Judgements.” European Journal of Political Research 12: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip, and Pierce, Roy. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip, and Pierce, Roy. 1993. “Comment on Fleury and Lewis-Beck.” Journal of Politics 55: 1110–1117.Google Scholar
Coughlin, Peter J. 1992. Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 903–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Palma, A., Ginsberg, V., Labbe, M., and Thisse, J.-F. 1989. “Competitive Location with Random Utilities.” Transportation Science 23: 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Palma, A., Hong, G., and Thisse, J.-F. 1990. “Equilibrium in Multiparty Competition under Uncertainty.” Social Choice and Welfare 7: 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Jay. 1997. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay, and Endersby, James. 1998. “A Comparison of Conditional Logit and Multinomial Probit Models in Multiparty Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Eaton, B. Curtis, and Lipsey, Richard G. 1975. “The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Reconsidered: Some New Developments in the Theory of Spatial Competition.” Review of Economic Studies 42: 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endersby, J., and Galatas, S. 1998. “British Parties and Spatial Competition: Dimensions of Party Evaluation in the 1992 Election.” Public Choice 97: 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin. 1989. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.” Public Choice 61: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fleury, Christopher, and Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1993. “Anchoring the French Voter: Ideology Versus Party.” Journal of Politics 55: 1100–1109.Google Scholar
Henrici, Peter. 1964. Elements of Numerical Analysis. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Huber, John, and Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. “Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.” Party Politics 1: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, Michael. 1992. “A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10: 193–200.Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Burden, Barry. 1999. “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Tse-min, Enelow, James M., and Dorussen, Han. 1999. “Equilibrium in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 98: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomborg, Bjorn. 1997. “Adaptive Parties in a Multiparty, Multidimensional System with Imperfect Information.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Adams, James. 2001. “Centrifugal Incentives in Multicandidate Elections.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, James M. 1972. Numerical Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1995. Choosing the Chief: Presidential Elections in France and the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1996. “French Presidential Election Survey, 1988” [computer file], ICPSR version. Ann Arbor: Roy Pierce, University of Michigan [producer], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman, Sened, Itai, and Nixon, David. 1998. “Nash Equilibria in Multiparty Competition with ‘Stochastic’ Voters.” Annals of Operations Research 84: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, Kenneth. 1986. Qualitative Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitten, Guy, and Palmer, Glen. 1996. “Heightening Comparativists’ Concern for Model Choice: Voting Behavior in Great Britain and the Netherlands.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar