Statistical Science

An integrated computational model of multiparty electoral competition

Kevin M. Quinn and Andrew D. Martin

Full-text: Open access


Most theoretic models of multiparty electoral competition make the assumption that party leaders are motivated to maximize their vote share or seat share. In plurality-rule systems this is a sensible assumption. However, in proportional representation systems, this assumption is questionable since the ability to make public policy is not strictly increasing in vote shares or seat shares. We present a theoretic model in which party leaders choose electoral declarations with an eye toward the expected policy outcome of the coalition bargaining game induced by the party declarations and the parties' beliefs about citizens' voting behavior. To test this model, we turn to data from the 1989 Dutch parliamentary election. We use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate the parties' beliefs about mass voting behavior and to average over measurement uncertainty and missing data. Due to the complexity of the parties' objective functions and the uncertainty in objective function estimates, equilibria are found numerically. Unlike previous models of multiparty electoral competition, the equilibrium results are consistent with the empirical declarations of the four major Dutch parties.

Article information

Statist. Sci., Volume 17, Issue 4 (2002), 405-419.

First available in Project Euclid: 10 April 2003

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

Monte Carlo method voting behavior electoral strategy coalition formation


Quinn, Kevin M.; Martin, Andrew D. An integrated computational model of multiparty electoral competition. Statist. Sci. 17 (2002), no. 4, 405--419. doi:10.1214/ss/1049993200.

Export citation


  • ALVAREZ, R. M. and NAGLER, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science 42 55-96.
  • ANKER, H. and OPPENHUIS, E. V. (1993). Dutch Parliamentary election study, 1989 (computer file). Dutch Electoral Research Foundation and Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics, Amsterdam.
  • AUSTEN-SMITH, D. and BANKS, J. (1988). Elections, coalitions, and legislative outcomes. American Political Science Review 82 405-422.
  • BLACK, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • COUGHLIN, P. J. (1992). Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • COX, G. W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Sy stems. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • DALTON, R. J. (1985). Political parties and political representation: Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies 18 267-299.
  • DAVIS, O. and HINICH, M. (1966). A mathematical model of policy formation in a democratic society. In Mathematical Applications in Political Science (J. L. Bernd, ed.) 2 175-208. Southern Methodist Univ. Press, Dallas.
  • DOWNS, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper, New York.
  • ENELOW, J. and HINICH, M. (1984). The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • ENELOW, J. and HINICH, M. (1989). A general probabilistic spatial theory of elections. Public Choice 61 101-113.
  • ENELOW, J. and HINICH, M., eds. (1990). Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • ERIKSON, R. S. and ROMERO, D. W. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review 84 1103-1126.
  • FUDENBERG, D. and TIROLE, J. (1991). Game Theory. MIT Press.
  • HOTELLING, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal 39 41-57.
  • IVERSEN, T. (1994). Political leadership and representation in west European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 38 45-74.
  • KING, G., HONAKER, J., JOSEPH, A. and SCHEVE, K. (2001). Analy zing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review 95 49-69.
  • KIRCHHEIMER, O. (1966). The transformation of the west European party sy stems. In Political Parties and Political Development (J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner, eds.). Princeton Univ. Press.
  • LAVER, M. and SHEPSLE, K. A. (1996). Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • LIN, T.-M., ENELOW, J. M. and DORUSSEN, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice 98 59-82.
  • LIPSET, S. M. and ROKKAN, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party sy stems and voter alignments: an introduction. In Party Sy stems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives (S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan, eds.). Free Press, New York.
  • LISTHAUG, O., MACDONALD, S. E. and RABINOWITZ, G. (1990). A comparative spatial analysis of European party sy stems. Scandinavian Political Studies 13 227-254.
  • LITTLE, R. J. A. and RUBIN, D. (1987). Statistical Analy sis with Missing Data. Wiley, New York.
  • LOPES, H. F. and WEST, M. (1999). Model uncertainty in factor analysis. Working paper, ISDS, Duke Univ.
  • MCFADDEN, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics (P. Zarembka, ed.). Academic Press, New York.
  • NASH, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 36 48-49.
  • NELDER, J. A. and MEAD, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal 7 308-313.
  • QUINN, K. M., MARTIN, A. D. and WHITFORD, A. B. (1999). Voter choice in multi-party democracies: A test of competing theories and models. American Journal of Political Science 43 1231-1247.
  • RABINOWITZ, G., MACDONALD, S. E. and LISTHAUG, O. (1991). New play ers in an old game: Party strategy in multiparty sy stem. Comparative Political Studies 24 147-185.
  • SCHAFER, J. L. (1997). Analy sis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. Chapman and Hall, London.
  • SELTEN, R. (1965). Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfrageträgheit. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 121 301-324.
  • SHEPSLE, K. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science 23 27-59.
  • SHEPSLE, K. A. and COHEN, R. N. (1990). Multiparty competition, entry, and entry deterrence in spatial models of elections. In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting (J. M. Enelow and M. J. Hinich, eds.) 12-45. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • WITTMAN, D. (1983). Candidate motivation: A sy nthesis of alternative theories. American Political Science Review 77 142-157.