Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T16:12:40.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Voting in Plurality Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Daniel Kselman and
Emerson Niou
Daniel Kselman*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences, Juan March Institute, Castelló Street, 77, Madrid, Spain 28006
Emerson Niou
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Duke University, 326 Perkins Library, Box 90204, Durham, NC 27708. e-mail: niou@duke.edu
*
e-mail: dmk10@duke.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper extends the Calculus of Voting of McKelvey and Ordeshook, providing the first direct derivation of the conditions under which voters will vote strategically: choose their second-most preferred candidate in order to prevent their least-preferred candidate from winning. Addressing this theoretical problem is important, as nearly all empirical research on strategic voting either implicitly or explicitly tests hypotheses which originate from this seminal model. The formal result allows us to isolate the subset of voters to which strategic voting hypotheses properly apply and in turn motivates a critical reevaluation of past empirical work. In making this argument, we develop a unified and parsimonious framework for understanding competing models of tactical voter choice. The typology helps to elucidate the methodological difficulties in studying tactical behavior when faced with heterogeneous explanatory models and suggests the need for both theoretical caution and more precise data instruments in future empirical work.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010, pp. 227 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: We would like to thank John Aldrich, Gary Cox, Dean Lacy, Brendan Nyhan, Camber Warren, and anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on past versions of the paper.

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Paolino, Phil, and Rohde, David W. 1992. ‘Sophisticated’ voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review 86(1): 55–69.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Boehmke, Fred, and Nagler, Jonathon. 2006. Strategic voting in British elections. Electoral Studies 25(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael R., and Nagler, Jonathon. 2000. A new approach for modeling strategic voting in multiparty elections. British Journal of Political Science 30(1): 57–75.Google Scholar
Black, Jerome H. 1978. The multi-candidate Calculus of Voting: Application to Canadian federal elections. American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 609–38.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, and Nadeau, Richard. 1996. Measuring strategic voting: A two-step procedure. Electoral Studies 15(1): 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce E. 1978. Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 639–55.Google Scholar
Canadian Election Study. 1988. Principal Investigators Richard Johnston, André Blais, Henry Brady, and Jean Crête.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1994. Strategic voting equilibria under the single non-transferable vote. American Political Science Review 88(3): 608–21.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making votes count. Strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambirdge University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political parties. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gutkowski, William, and Georges, John. 1993. Optimal sophisticated voting strategies in single ballot elections involving three candidates. Public Choice 77(2): 225–47.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard J., Blais, André, Brady, Henry, and Crête, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Kselman, Daniel, and Niou, Emerson. 2008. Protest voting in plurality elections: A theory of voter signaling. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1972. A general theory of the Calculus of Voting. In Mathematical applications in political science IV, eds. Herndon, James F., and Bernd, Joseph L., 32–78. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Myatt, David P. 2007. On the theory of strategic voting. Review of Economic Studies 74(1): 255–81.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger B., and Weber, Robert J. 1993. A theory of voting equilibrium. American Political Science Review 87(1): 102–14.Google Scholar
Niou, M. S. Emerson. 2001. Strategic voting under plurality and runoff rules. Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(2): 209–27.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shvetsova, Olga. 1994. Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science 38(1): 100–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C., and Zeng, Langche. 1997. Rational voters and strategic voting. Evidence from the 1968, 1980, and 1992 elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(2): 167–87.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas. 1989. A mathematical proof of Duverger's law. In Models of strategic choice in politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1968. A theory of the Calculus of Voting. American Political Science Review 62(1): 25–42.Google Scholar
Schuessler, Alexander A. 2000. A logic of expressive choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar