The pronouncements of paranoid politicians
AbstractThis paper models the strategic encounter of two office-motivated candidates who may or may not announce policy. In the case of no announcement, the voters rank the candidates according to prior beliefs. In the case of announcement, the candidates cannot avoid a degree of noise in the voters' interpretation of their announcements. We show that this simple deviation from the standard Downsian setting suffices to overcome previous impossibility results which suggest that not announcing policy can never occur in equilibrium. Also, we extend the model to study the equilibrium when candidates are ambiguity averse. An ambiguity averse candidate is interpreted as being concerned about an ongoing negative campaign against him. This negative campaign would consist in inducing the voters to adopt some interpretation of the candidate's announcement unfavorable to his electoral performance. We show that under ambiguity aversion the candidates opt not to announce position under less stringent conditions than expected utility. Finally, we use data on U.S. Senate elections to test an empirical implication of the model. We find that the relevant coefficient has the sign predicted by the theory and is statistically significant.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 4473.
Date of creation: 10 Aug 2007
Date of revision:
Voting; Salience; Electoral Ambiguity; Ambiguity Aversion; Media Politics;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
- C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-08-18 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2007-08-18 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-POL-2007-08-18 (Positive Political Economics)
- NEP-SOC-2007-08-18 (Social Norms & Social Capital)
- NEP-UPT-2007-08-18 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Enriqueta Aragonès & Thomas Palfrey & Andrew Postlewaite, 2007.
"Political Reputations and Campaign Promises,"
Journal of the European Economic Association,
MIT Press, vol. 5(4), pages 846-884, 06.
- Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006.
"Dynamic Variational Preferences,"
Carlo Alberto Notebooks
1, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
- Enriqueta Aragones & Zvika Neeman, 1994.
"Strategic Ambiguity in Electoral Competition,"
1083, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Morelli, Massimo, 1998.
"Party Formation and Policy Outcomes Under Different Electoral Systems,"
Staff General Research Papers
1242, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Massimo Morelli, 2004. "Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(3), pages 829-853.
- Massimo Morelli, 2004. "Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71, pages 829-853, 07.
- Massimo Morelli, 2001. "Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems," Economics Working Papers 0018, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
- Marcus Berliant & Hideo Konishi, 2005.
"Salience: Agenda choices by competing candidates,"
Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 129-149, July.
- Marcus Berliant & Hideo Konishi, 2004. "Salience: Agenda Choices by Competing Candidates," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 603, Boston College Department of Economics.
- Marcus Berliant & Hideo Konishi, 2004. "Salience: Agenda Choices by Competing Candidates," Game Theory and Information 0407003, EconWPA.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003.
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
- Cramer,J. S., 2011.
"Logit Models from Economics and Other Fields,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521188036, December.
- McKelvey, Richard D. & Patty, John W., 2006. "A theory of voting in large elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 155-180, October.
- Enriqueta Aragonés & Andrew Postlewaite, 1999. "Ambiguity in election games," Economics Working Papers 364, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993.
"Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
- Adams, James, 1999. " Multiparty Spatial Competition with Probabilistic Voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 99(3-4), pages 259-74, June.
- Osborne, Martin J., 2000. "Entry-deterring policy differentiation by electoral candidates," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 41-62, July.
- Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2006.
"Media Bias and Reputation,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 280-316, April.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.