Electoral Competition with Credible Promises and Strategic Voters

How can voters induce politicians to put forth more proximate (in terms of preference) as well as credible platforms (in terms of promise fulfillment) under repeated elections? Building on the work of Aragones et al. (2007), I study how reputation and re-election concerns affect candidate behavior and its resultant effect on voters' beliefs and their consequent electoral decisions. I present a formal model where, instead of assuming voters to be naive, I tackle the question by completely characterizing a set of subgame-perfect equilibria by introducing non-naive (or strategic) voting behavior into the mix. I find that non-naive voting behavior, by using the candidate's reputation as an instrument of policy discipline after the election, aids in successfully inducing candidates to put forth their maximal incentive-compatible promise (among a range of such credible promises) in equilibrium. Through the credible threat of punishment in the form of loss of reputation for all future elections, non-naive voters gain a unanimous increase in expected utility relative to when they behave naively. In fact, comparative statics show that candidates who are more likely to win are more likely to keep their promises. In this framework, voters are not only able to bargain for more credible promises but also end up raising their expected future payoffs in equilibrium. Including such forms of strategic behavior thus reduces cheap talk by creating a credible electoral system where candidates do as they say once elected. Later, I present an analysis that includes limited punishment as a political accountability mechanism.