Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T21:30:12.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Roger B. Myerson
Roger B. Myerson
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A simple model is used to compare, under different electoral systems, the incentives for candidates to create inequalities among otherwise homogeneous voters, by making campaign promises that favor small groups, rather than appealing equally to all voters. In this game model, each candidate generates offers for voters independently out of a distribution that is chosen by the candidate, subject only to the constraints that offers must be nonnegative and have mean 1. Symmetric equilibria with sincere voting are analyzed for two-candidate elections and for multicandidate elections under rank-scoring rules, approval voting, and single transferable vote. Voting rules that can guarantee representation for minorities in multiseat elections generate, in this model, the most severely unequal campaign promises.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 856 - 869
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

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

Ames, Barry. 1992. “Disparately Seeking Politicians: Strategies and Outcomes in Brazilian Legislative Elections.“ Washington University, St. Louis. Typescript.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. “Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 31:82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34:903–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1992. “Strategic Voting Equilibria under SNTV.” University of California, San Diego. Typescript.Google Scholar
Gross, O., and Wagner, R.. 1950. A Continuous Colonel Blotto Game. Research Memorandum RM-408. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Myerson, Roger B.. 1992. “Campaign Spending with Impressionable Voters.” Northwestern University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1993. “Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-theoretic Analysis.” Games and Economic Behavior 5:118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger B., and Weber, Robert J.. 1993. “A Theory of Voting Equilibria.” American Political Science Review 87:102–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Guillermo. 1982. Game Theory. 2d ed. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Reed, Steven R. 1990. “Structure and Behavior: Extending Duverger's Law to the Japanese Case.” British Journal of Political Science 20:335–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law.” American Political Science Review 76:753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubik, Martin. 1970. “Voting; or, a Price System in a Competitive Market Structure.” American Political Science Review 64:179–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Leo K., and Zame, William R.. 1990. “Discontinuous Games and Endogenous Sharing Rules.” Econometrica 58:861–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar