Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-hs2vm Total loading time: 0.467 Render date: 2021-03-09T06:03:33.963Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Testing Core Predictions of Spatial Models: Platform Moderation and Challenger Success*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Abstract

A large class of spatial models of elections converges upon a single prediction: a candidate’s vote share increases in the congruence between her platform and the median voter’s preferences. Though considerable empirical research provides support for this prediction, these studies have not adequately identified the effects of platform positioning net of other factors. In this paper, we study the impact of challenger moderation on vote shares using data from 444 US House elections from 1996 to 2006 in which successive challengers competed against a common incumbent. Our findings are largely null. We uncover no evidence that challengers increase their vote shares by adopting more moderate platform positions. This finding is robust across a wide range of model specifications and subsets of districts.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

B. Pablo Montagnes is an Assistant Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, 1130 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 (pmontagnes@uchicago.edu). Jon C. Rogowski is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1063, St. Louis, MO 63130 (jrogowsk@artsci.wustl.edu). The authors gratefully acknowledge Project Vote Smart for providing data used in this paper, and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, Will Howell, Eric Oliver, Drew Linzer, Boris Shor, Betsy Sinclair, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor for helpful comments. Data used in this project were obtained from Project Vote Smart, the Federal Election Commission, and the Clerk of the US House of Representatives. Replication data can be accessed through the Political Science Research and Methods Dataverse. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.36

References

Adams, James, Engstrom, Erik, Joesten, Danielle, and Stone, Walter J.. 2014. ‘Do Moderate Voters Weigh Candidates’ Ideologies? Voter Decision Rules in the 2010 Congressional Elections’. Working paper, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. ‘Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?’. British Journal of Political Science 34:589610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. ‘Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998’. American Journal of Political Science 50:513529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, James, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. ‘Moderate Now, Win Votes Later: The Electoral Consequences of Parties’ Policy Shifts in Twenty-Five Postwar Democracies’. Journal of Politics 71:678692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2006. ‘The Paradox of Minimal Effects’. In Henry E. Brady and Richard G.D. Johnston (eds), Capturing Campaign Effects, 2944. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Snyder, James M., and Stewart, Charles. 2001. ‘Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 45:136159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress’. American Political Science Review 104:519542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S. 1990. ‘A Model of Electoral Competition with Incomplete Information’. Journal of Economic Theory 50:309325.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. ‘Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions’. American Journal of Political Science 53:495513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, Dan, and Ingberman, Daniel. 1985. ‘Candidate Reputations and the “Incumbent Effect”’. Journal of Public Economics 27:4767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., Burden, Barry C., and Howell, William G.. 2010. ‘The President and the Distribution of Spending’. American Political Science Review 104:783799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. ‘On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making’. Journal of Political Economy 56:2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014. ‘Mapping the Ideological Marketplace’. American Journal of Political Science 58:367386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. ‘Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 34:211227.10.1017/S000712340400002XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine H.. 2008. ‘Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger’s Law’. Journal of Politics 69:10461056.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. ‘Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence’. American Journal of Political Science 29:6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Câmara, Odilon, and Bernhardt, Dan. 2013. ‘Learning About Challengers’. Working Paper, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. ‘Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting’. American Political Science Review 96:127140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Koger, Gregory, Lebo, Matthew J., and Young, Everett. 2010. ‘The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress’. American Journal of Political Science 54:598616.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie, Crespin, Michael, Jenkins, Jeffrey, and Wielen, Ryan Vander. 2004. ‘Shirking in the Contemporary Congress: A Reappraisal’. Political Analysis 12:176179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Doug. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Voting: A Unified Approach’. American Political Science Review 98:355370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. ‘Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?’. American Journal of Political Science 40:478497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Shaila, and Kornblut, Anne E.. 2006. ‘In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right’, New York Times, 30 October.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. ‘The Electoral Impact of Congressional Roll Call Voting’. American Political Science Review 65:10181032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C.. 1980. ‘Elections and Policy Representation of Constituency Interests: The Case of the 1974 House Elections’. Political Behavior 2:91106.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2005. ‘Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984–1998’. European Journal of Political Research 44:881898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, Homola, Jonathan, and Tavits, Margit. 2014a. ‘When Extremism Pays: Policy Positions, Voter Certainty, and Party Support in Postcommunist Europe’. Journal of Politics 76:535547.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, Tavits, Margit, and Homola, Jonathan. 2014b. Voter Polarization, Strength of Partisanship, and Support for Extremist Parties’. Comparative Political Studies 47:15581583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, and Wolfgang, Pesendorfer. 1997. ‘Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information’. Econometrica 65:10291058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Wolfgang, Pesendorfer. 1999. ‘Abstention in Elections with Asymmetric Information and Diverse Preferences’. American Political Science Review 93:381398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.A. 1935. Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. ‘Whatever Happened to the Median Voter?’. Paper prepared for the MIT Conference on Parties and Congress, Cambridge, MA, October 2, 1999.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. ‘Downs and Two-Party Convergence’. Annual Review of Political Science 7:2546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Griffin, Robert, and Berry, Gregory. 1995. ‘House Members Who Become Senators: Learning from a “Natural Experiment” in Representation’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:513529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. ‘A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 45:862886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halberstam, Yosh, and Montagnes, B. Pablo. Forthcoming. ‘Presidential Coattails versus The Median Voter: Senator Selection in US Elections’. Journal of Public Economics.Google Scholar
Hall, Andrew B., and Snyder, James M.. 2014. ‘Candidate Ideology and Electoral Success’. Working Paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hansen, Ben B., and Jake, Bowers. 2009. ‘Attributing Effects to a Cluster-Randomized Get-Outthe-Vote Campaign’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104:873885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1969. ‘Abstentions and Equilibrium in the Electoral Process’. Public Choice 7:81106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. ‘Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections: 1946–1986’. American Political Science Review 83:773793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. ‘Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election’. American Political Science Review 103:5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A.. 2010. ‘Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election’. Journal of Politics 72:327340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1994. ‘Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House’. Journal of Political Economy 102:777798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lublin, David Ian. 1994. ‘Quality, Not Quantity: Strategic Politicians in U.S. Senate Elections, 1952–1990’. Journal of Politics 56:228241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald W.. 1963. ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’. American Political Science Review 57:4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Woojin. 2004. ‘Party Activists, Campaign Resources and Candidate Position Taking: Theory, Tests and Applications’. British Journal of Political Science 34:611633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2008. ‘Candidate Positioning in U.S. Senate Elections: An Empirical Investigation of the Revised Spatial Model’. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA August 28-31, 2008.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. ‘Changing Minds? Not in Congress!’. Public Choice 131:435451.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Romer, Thomas. 1993. ‘Ideology, Shirking, and Representation’. Public Choice 131:435451.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C. 2014. ‘Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation’. American Journal of Political Science 58:479494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David. 2004. ‘From Socialism to Social Democracy: Party Organization and the Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil’. Comparative Political Studies 37:9991024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofild, Norman, and Sened, Itai. 2005. ‘Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists and Voters: Why is the Political Center So Empty?’. European Journal of Political Research 44:355390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and Rogowski, Jon C.. 2013. ‘Proximity Voting in House Elections’. Working Paper, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. ‘The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures’. American Political Science Review 105:530551.Google Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. 2013. ‘Proximity Voting in the 2010 U.S. House Elections’. Electoral Studies 32:708717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. ‘Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy Change’. Journal of Politics 71:238248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. ‘Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 54:371388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Christopher, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. ‘Do Legislator Positions Affect Constituent Voting Decisions in U.S. House Elections?’. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. ‘Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice’. American Political Science Review 102:303318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2010. ‘Candidate Inconsistency and Voter Choice’. Presented at the Experimental Political Science Conference, New York University, New York, NY, February 5–6, 2010.Google Scholar
Van Weelden, Richard. 2013. ‘Candidates, Credibility, and Re-election Incentives’. The Review of Economic Studies 80:16221651.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1983. ‘Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories’. American Political Science Review 77:142157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1978. ‘Candidate Policy Positions and Voting in Congressional Elections’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 3:445464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montagnes and Rogowski Datasets

Link

Montagnes and Rogowski supplementary material

Appendix

PDF 385 KB

Montagnes and Rogowski supplementary material

Appendix

File 11 KB

Montagnes and Rogowski supplementary material

Figure A1

PDF 76 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 124 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 9th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Testing Core Predictions of Spatial Models: Platform Moderation and Challenger Success*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Testing Core Predictions of Spatial Models: Platform Moderation and Challenger Success*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Testing Core Predictions of Spatial Models: Platform Moderation and Challenger Success*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *