Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates

Most formal models of valence competition add a single, separable and unweighted component to the standard one-dimensional utility function of voters. This article presents the results of a conjoint analysis experiment in which respondents were asked to choose between two candidates whose profiles vary along five attributes. Four of these traits behave like valence or policy issues as expected, but one, which has been employed in recent formal and empirical works, does not. Moreover, policy and valence are not separable. They interact at least in some cases, taking a competency form whereby the marginal impact of valence on voters’ choice is conditional on candidates’ policies. This result lends support to recent studies that have found more extensive valence voting under ideological convergence. Finally, policy trumps valence in awkward choices. Respondents even prefer corrupt candidates with similar policy views to honest ones with different opinions, despite integrity being declared the most important attribute.

[1]  Norman Schofield,et al.  The Mean Voter Theorem: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Convergent Equilibrium , 2007 .

[2]  Thomas Brambor,et al.  Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses , 2006, Political Analysis.

[3]  C. Funk.  Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluation , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[5]  Morris P. Fiorina,et al.  Retrospective voting in American national elections , 1981 .

[6]  N. Schofield.  Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model , 2003 .

[7]  M. Lewis-Beck,et al.  Economics, Party, and the Vote: Causality Issues and Panel Data , 2008 .

[8]  John R. Petrocik,et al.  Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies , 1983 .

[9]  Tim Groseclose,et al.  A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage , 2001 .

[10]  Bonnie M. Meguid,et al.  Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice , 2008 .

[11]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis , 1993 .

[12]  Jeffery J. Mondak,et al.  Candidate quality and the congressional vote: A causal connection? , 1996 .

[13]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition , 1982, The Journal of Politics.

[14]  Tommaso Nannicini,et al.  Competing on Good Politicians , 2009, American Political Science Review.

[15]  J. Fearon.  Democracy, Accountability, and Representation: Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance , 1999 .

[16]  Enriqueta Aragonès,et al.  Mixed Equilibrium in a Downsian Model with a Favored Candidate , 2000, J. Econ. Theory.

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[18]  James M. Enelow,et al.  The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction , 1984 .

[19]  Jane Green,et al.  Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections , 2008 .

[20]  Sergi Pardos-Prado.  Valence beyond consensus: Party competence and policy dispersion from a comparative perspective , 2012 .

[21]  D. Leiter,et al.  Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies , 2010 .

[22]  H. D. Palmer,et al.  Government competence, economic performance and endogenous election dates 1 Earlier versions of this , 2000 .

[23]  M. Messner,et al.  Paying Politicians , 2003 .

[24]  Damaraju Raghavarao,et al.  Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and Designs , 2010 .

[25]  Matthew K. Buttice,et al.  Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections , 2012 .

[26]  Kenneth A. Shepsle,et al.  Political Economy Models of Elections , 2011 .

[27]  Daniel J. Hopkins,et al.  Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments , 2013 .

[28]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[29]  Larry M. Bartels.  Party Systems and Political Change in Europe 1 , 2013 .

[30]  David Butler,et al.  Political change in Britain , 1974 .

[31]  Fabio Galeotti,et al.  Competence Versus Trustworthiness: What Do Voters Care About? , 2014 .

[32]  Walter J. Stone,et al.  Candidate Valence and Ideological Positioning in U.S. House Elections , 2007 .

[33]  Jeffery J. Mondak,et al.  Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents' Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections , 1995 .

[34]  P. Whiteley,et al.  Political Choice in Britain , 2004 .

[35]  Tim Groseclose,et al.  ‘One and a Half Dimensional’ Preferences and Majority Rule , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[36]  C. Anderson.  Economic voting and political context: a comparative perspective , 2000 .

[37]  Jens Hainmueller,et al.  The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants , 2012 .

[38]  The accessibility and utility of candidate character in electoral decision making , 2006 .

[39]  Dean Lacy,et al.  A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses , 2001 .

[40]  S. Merrill,et al.  Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model , 2009, British Journal of Political Science.

[41]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models , 2000 .

[42]  Benoît S. Y. Crutzen,et al.  The Impact of Party Organization on Electoral Outcomes , 2010 .

[43]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[44]  T. Palfrey,et al.  The Effect of Candidate Quality on Electoral Equilibrium: An Experimental Study , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[45]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[46]  Kenneth Benoit,et al.  Party Policy in Modern Democracies , 2006 .

[47]  When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections , 2011 .

[48]  Donald E. Stokes,et al.  Spatial Models of Party Competition , 1963, American Political Science Review.

[49]  Morris P. Fiorina,et al.  Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies , 1974 .

[50]  C. Funk.  The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits , 1996 .

[51]  Stephen Coate,et al.  An Economic Model of Representative Democracy , 1997 .

[52]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  Analytical politics: Frontmatter , 1997 .

[53]  The transformation of European social democracy , 1994 .

[54]  M. Clark.  Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998 , 2009 .

[55]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects , 2001, Interfaces.