Adaptive platform dynamics in multi-party spatial voting

We explore the dynamics of multiple competing political parties under spatial voting. Parties are allowed to modify their positions adaptively in order to gain more votes. The parties in our model are opportunistic, that means they try to maximize their share of votes regardless of any ideological position. Each party makes small corrections to its current platform in order to increase its own utility by means of steepest ascent in the variables under its own control, i.e., by locally optimizing its own platform. We show that in models with more than two parties bifurcations at the trivial equilibrium occur if only the voters are critical enough, that is, if they respond strongly to small changes in relative utilities. A numerical survey in a three-party model yields multiple bifurcations, multi-stability, and stable periodic attractors that arise through Hopf bifurcations. Models with more than two parties can thus differ substantially from the two-party case, where it has been shown that under the assumptions of quadratic voter utilities and complete voter participation there is always a globally stable equilibrium that coincides with the mean voter position. Publishied in Adv.Complex Systems (1999) vol.2, 101-116.

[1]  Bärbel M. R. Stadler,et al.  Abstention causes bifurcations in two-party voting dynamics , 2000, Appl. Math. Comput..

[2]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .

[3]  A. Smithies Optimum Location in Spatial Competition , 1941, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Peter J. Coughlin,et al.  Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting: Candidate Uncertainty and Electoral Equilibria , 1990 .

[5]  K. T. Poole,et al.  U.S. Presidential Elections 1968-80: A Spatial Analysis , 1984 .

[6]  Gerald H. Kramer,et al.  On a Class of Equilibrium Conditions for Majority Rule , 1973 .

[7]  Herbert F. Weisberg,et al.  Perceptions of Presidential Candidates: Implications for Electoral Change , 1972 .

[8]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting: Methods of Statistical Analysis , 1970 .

[9]  Scott E. Page,et al.  Political Parties and Electoral Landscapes , 1993, British Journal of Political Science.

[10]  Shmuel Nitzan,et al.  Directional and local electoral equilibria with probabilistic voting , 1981 .

[11]  J. Hofbauer,et al.  Adaptive dynamics and evolutionary stability , 1990 .

[12]  M. Hinich,et al.  An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process , 1970, American Political Science Review.

[13]  G. Rabinowitz A procedure for ordering object pairs consistent with the multidimensional unfolding model , 1976 .

[14]  T. Malthus Essay on the Principle of Population , 2001 .

[15]  Peter C. Ordeshook,et al.  Symmetric Spatial Games Without Majority Rule Equilibria , 1976, American Political Science Review.

[16]  R. Axelrod An Evolutionary Approach to Norms , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[17]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[18]  L. Samuelson Electoral equilibria with restricted strategies , 1984 .

[19]  P. Taylor Evolutionarily stable strategies with two types of player , 1979, Journal of Applied Probability.

[20]  R. Axelrod,et al.  A Landscape Theory of Aggregation , 1993, British Journal of Political Science.

[21]  Evaluating dimensionality in spatial voting models , 1992 .

[22]  W. Riker Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions , 1980 .

[23]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  The theory of evolution and dynamical systems , 1988 .

[24]  H. Weisberg,et al.  Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation , 1970, American Political Science Review.

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

[26]  I. Bomze Cross entropy minimization in uninvadable states of complex populations , 1991 .

[27]  Duncan MacRae,et al.  Dimensions of congressional voting : a statistical study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress /by Duncan MacRae, Jr , 1958 .

[28]  Immanuel M. Bomze,et al.  Dynamical aspects of evolutionary stability , 1990 .

[29]  James W. Endersby,et al.  The stability of voter perceptions: A comparison of candidate positions across time using the spatial theory of voting , 1992 .

[30]  James M. Enelow A methodology for testing a new spatial model of elections , 1988 .

[31]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility Under Majority Rule , 1967 .

[32]  I. Bomze,et al.  Game Theoretical Foundations of Evolutionary Stability , 1989 .

[33]  D. Rivers,et al.  Sophisticated Voting in Congress: A Reconsideration , 1990, The Journal of Politics.

[34]  D. Rivers,et al.  The analysis of committee power: An application to senate voting on the minimum wage , 1988 .

[35]  S. Page,et al.  Landscape Formation in a Spatial Voting Model , 1997 .

[36]  H. Hotelling Stability in Competition , 1929 .

[37]  E. Zeeman Dynamics of the evolution of animal conflicts , 1981 .

[38]  K. T. Poole,et al.  Patterns of congressional voting , 1991 .

[39]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  Probabilistic Voting and the Importance of Centrist Ideologies in Democratic Elections , 1984, The Journal of Politics.

[40]  R. McKelvey General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models , 1979 .

[41]  John H. Miller,et al.  Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections , 1992, American Political Science Review.

[42]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  SOCIAL PREFERENCE ORDERINGS AND MAJORITY RULE , 1972 .

[43]  G. Thompson,et al.  The Theory of Committees and Elections. , 1959 .