Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 103
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Barber, Stephen 2016. ‘Westminster’s wingman’? Shadow chancellor as a strategic and coveted political role. British Politics, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 184.


    Bräuninger, Thomas and Giger, Nathalie 2016. Strategic Ambiguity of Party Positions in Multi-Party Competition. Political Science Research and Methods, p. 1.


    Greene, Zachary 2016. Working through the issues: how issue diversity and ideological disagreement influence coalition duration. European Political Science Review, p. 1.


    Houser, Daniel Ludwig, Sandra and Stratmann, Thomas 2016. DECEPTION AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: THEORY AND LABORATORY EVIDENCE. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 54, Issue. 1, p. 464.


    Leuprecht, Christian and Skillicorn, David B. 2016. Incumbency effects in U.S. presidential campaigns: Language patterns matter. Electoral Studies, Vol. 43, p. 95.


    Meyer, Thomas M. and Strobl, Daniel 2016. Voter perceptions of coalition policy positions in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies, Vol. 41, p. 80.


    Banducci, Susan Giebler, Heiko and Kritzinger, Sylvia 2015. Knowing More from Less: How the Information Environment Increases Knowledge of Party Positions. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.


    Greene, Zachary David and Haber, Matthias 2015. The consequences of appearing divided: An analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies, Vol. 37, p. 15.


    Grose, Christian R. Malhotra, Neil and Parks Van Houweling, Robert 2015. Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 724.


    Milazzo, Caitlin 2015. Getting it Right When it Counts: Constituency Marginality and Voter Perceptions of British Parties' Policy Positions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 111.


    Papageorgiou, Achillefs and Autto, Hannu 2015. Is there a relationship between party system polarization and voters’ proximity to the parties in the left–right dimension?. Acta Politica, Vol. 50, Issue. 3, p. 344.


    Somer-Topcu, Zeynep 2015. Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 4, p. 841.


    Eckles, David L. Kam, Cindy D. Maestas, Cherie L. and Schaffner, Brian F. 2014. Risk Attitudes and the Incumbency Advantage. Political Behavior, Vol. 36, Issue. 4, p. 731.


    Frenkel, Sivan 2014. Competence and ambiguity in electoral competition. Public Choice, Vol. 159, Issue. 1-2, p. 219.


    Kamada, Yuichiro and Kojima, Fuhito 2014. Voter Preferences, Polarization, and Electoral Policies†. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, Vol. 6, Issue. 4, p. 203.


    Kräkel, Matthias Nieken, Petra and Przemeck, Judith 2014. Risk taking and investing in electoral competition. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 33, p. 98.


    Milita, Kerri Ryan, John Barry and Simas, Elizabeth N. 2014. Nothing to Hide, Nowhere to Run, or Nothing to Lose: Candidate Position-Taking in Congressional Elections. Political Behavior, Vol. 36, Issue. 2, p. 427.


    KIM, HENRY A. and LEVECK, BRAD L. 2013. Money, Reputation, and Incumbency in U.S. House Elections, or Why Marginals Have Become More Expensive. American Political Science Review, Vol. 107, Issue. 03, p. 492.


    Meyer, Thomas M. and Jenny, Marcelo 2013. Measuring error for adjacent policy position estimates: Dealing with uncertainty using CMP data. Electoral Studies, Vol. 32, Issue. 1, p. 174.


    Rovny, Jan 2013. Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review, Vol. 5, Issue. 01, p. 1.


    ×

The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition*

  • Kenneth A. Shepsle (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957799
  • Published online: 01 August 2014
Abstract

In this paper problems of social choice in general, and political choice in particular, are considered in light of uncertainty. The space of social alternatives in this formulation includes not only pure social states, but lotteries or probability distributions over those states as well. In the context of candidate strategy selection in a spatial model of political choice, candidate strategy sets are represented by pure strategies—points in the space of alternatives—and ambiguous strategies—lotteries over those points. Questions about optimal strategy choice and the equilibrium properties of these choices are then entertained. Duncan Black's theorem about the dominance of the median preference is generalized, and further contingencies in which the theorem is false are specified. The substantive foci of these results are: (1) the conditions in which seekers of political office will rationally choose to appear equivocal in their policy intentions; and (2) the role of institutional structure in defining equilibrium.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All

Several closely related papers including the one presented here have benefitted from close readings and careful criticism by a number of people. For their efforts I acknowledge and thank Richard Niemi, Alvin Rabushka, William Riker, John Sprague, and Herbert Weisberg, as well as the anonymous referees of this paper. A Washington University Faculty Summer Research Grant provided time to prepare and revise various drafts of this paper.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Kenneth J. Arrow , “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations,” Econometrica, 19 (101951), 404

Douglas W. Rae , “Decision Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice,” American Political Science Review, 63 (031969), 4056

Donald E. Stokes , “Spatial Models of Party Competition,” American Political Science Review, 57 (061963), 368377 (quoted at p. 368)

Otto Davis , Melvin Hinich , and Peter Ordeshook , “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process,” American Political Science Review, 64 (061970), 426448

Amartya Sen , “A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions,” Econometrica, 34 (041966), 491499

Gerald Garvey , “The Theory of Party Equilibrium,” American Political Science Review, 60 (031966), 2938

Robert Schoenberger , “Campaign Strategy and Party Loyalty: The Electoral Relevance of Candidate Decision-Making in the 1964 Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review, 63 (061969), 515520 (quotation at pp. 519–520)

William H. Riker and Peter C. Ordeshook , “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting,” American Political Science Review, 62 (031968), 2542

Milton Friedman and L. J. Savage , “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, 56 (1948), 279304

Richard Zeckhauser , “Majority Rule with Lotteries on Alternatives,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83 (111969), 696703

John W. Pratt , Howard Raiffa , and Robert Schlaifer , “The Foundations of Decision Under Uncertainty: An Elementary Exposition,” Journal of the American Statistics Association, 59 (1964), 353375

On the Power and Importance of the Mean Preference in a Mathematical Model of Democratic Choice,” Public Choice, 5 (Fall 1968), 5972

Kenneth A. Shepsle , “A Note on Zeckhauser's ‘Majority Rule with Lotteries on Alternatives’: The Case of the Paradox of Voting,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (111970), 705710

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×