STRATEGIC VOTING AND MULTINOMIAL CHOICE IN US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Ross Perot was a relatively viable third party candidate in the 1992 US presidential election, but he was not any more in the 1996 election. This provides a good opportunity to analyze strategic voting behavior–voting for a candidate not most preferred by the voter–in the US presidential elections with panel data drawn from NES(National Election Studies). First, the 1992 election is analyzed with multinomial choice estimators. Second, using the estimates, each individual’s choice is predicted for the 1996 election. Third, those who were predicted to vote for Perot in 1996 but did not are identified as strategic voters and their profile is drawn. In addition to the main task of analyzing the strategic voting behavior, this paper does two additional tasks. First, analyzing the 1992 data with multinomial choice estimators, it is found that the following variables mattered significantly for the US presidential election: respondent and candidate ideology, personal finance, age, education, income, sex, abortion stance,health insurance policy, and welfare program policy. Second, critical mistakes in the literature in applying multinomial probit to election data are pointed.
Abstract
Ross Perot was a relatively viable third party candidate in the 1992 US presidential election, but he was not any more in the 1996 election. This provides a good opportunity to analyze strategic voting behavior–voting for a candidate not most preferred by the voter–in the US presidential elections with panel data drawn from NES(National Election Studies). First, the 1992 election is analyzed with multinomial choice estimators. Second, using the estimates, each individual’s choice is predicted for the 1996 election. Third, those who were predicted to vote for Perot in 1996 but did not are identified as strategic voters and their profile is drawn. In addition to the main task of analyzing the strategic voting behavior, this paper does two additional tasks. First, analyzing the 1992 data with multinomial choice estimators, it is found that the following variables mattered significantly for the US presidential election: respondent and candidate ideology, personal finance, age, education, income, sex, abortion stance,health insurance policy, and welfare program policy. Second, critical mistakes in the literature in applying multinomial probit to election data are pointed.
참고문헌 (16)
- Abramson, P.R., "Sophisticated voting in the 1988 presidential primaries", American Political Science Review, 86, pp.55~69 (1992)
- Alvarez, R.M., "Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: voter choice in the 1992 presidential election", American Journal of Political Science, 39, pp.714~744 (1995)
- Alvarez, R.M., "When politics and models collide: estimating models of multiparty elections", American Journal of Political Science, 75, pp.55~96 (1998)
- Alvarez, R.M., "Economics, entitlements, and social issues: voter choice in the 1996 presidential election", American Journal of Political Science, 42, pp.1349~1363 (1998)
- Alvarez, R. M., "A New approach for modelling strategic voting in multiparty elections", British Journal of Political Science, 30, pp.57~75 (2000)
- Blais, A., "Measuring strategic voting: a two-step procedure,ąś Electoral Studies in A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogenous preferences", Econometrica, 46, pp.403~426 (1996)
- Galbraith, J. W., "A Test of the importance of tactical voting: Great Britain", British Journal of Political Science, 19, pp.126~136 (1989)
- Johnston, R. J., "Tactical voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: an alternative approach", British Journal of Political Science, 21, pp.95~128 (1991)
- Keane, M.P., "A note on identi?cation in the multinomial probit model", of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, pp.193~200 (1992)
- Kousser, T., "Retrospective Voting and Strategic Behavior in European Parliament Elections in Panel data econometrics: methods-of-moments and limited dependent variables", Electoral Studies, 23, pp.1~21 (2004), Academic Press
- Lee, M.J., "Multinomial choice and nonparametric average derivatives", Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41, pp.63~81 (2007)
- McFadden, D., "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior in Frontiers in Econometrics" (1974), Academic Press
- McFadden, D., "Econometric models of probabilistic choice, in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data in Method of simulated moments for estimation of discrete response models without numerical integration", Econometrica, 57, pp.995~1026 (1989), MIT Press
- McFadden, D, "Mixed MNL models for discrete response in Public choice III", Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, pp.447~470 (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Niemi, R.G., "Constituency characteristics, indi-vidual characteristics and tactical voting in the 1987 British General election", British Journal of Political Science, 22, pp.229~254 (1992)
- Train, K.E., "Discrete choice methods with simulation in Election Studies" (2003), Cambridge Univ. Press