Democratic Economy

Question 1

What is the spatial theory of elections?

Answer 1

There is a single dimension policy space and each voter has a unique most preferred point. Voters therefore select the party whose policy is closest to their own point

Question 2

What are single peaked preferences?

Answer 2

Each person has an ideal choice and outcomes further from this point are preferred less.

X is between Y and the preference.

Question 3

What are Euclidean preferences?

Answer 3

Proximity preferences, so whichever preference is closer in either direction

Question 4

Using Euclidean preferences what can we assume about the outcome of elections?

Answer 4

If X is selected it was closer to more peoples preferred points. e.g Wins the median voter

Question 5

Using single peaked assumptions what can we say about the Median voter theorem?

Answer 5

The median voter’s most-preferred point is

preferred by a majority to any other point y

Question 6

What are some assumptions for basic median voter models?

Answer 6

• 2 parties with policy commitments
• The voter knows the policies
• Voter selected the party whose policy they prefer

Question 7

What did Downs (1957) say about median voter theorem in relation to assumptions about each parties position?

Answer 7

• Parties want to win the election
• Parties don’t otherwise care for policy
• Parties are free to locate anywhere in the policy space
• Knows voters preferences/position of the median voter

Question 8

Why if you add additional parties into the median voter model does it become problematic?

Answer 8

There will be a permanent disequilibrium as placing yourself at the median voter doesn’t guarantee an electoral win. Parties will shift around in search of winning position

Question 9

Why does median voter model become problematic with multi issue voting?

Answer 9

Every point has a non empty win-set. There is no equilibrium. (Venn diagram)

Question 10

Adams (2004) main conclusion?

Answer 10

That parties shift position only when the public opinion shifts away for their policy position

Question 11

What did Adams (2004) examine?

Answer 11

Whether parties change policy/ideologies in response to public opinion or past election results

Question 12

What did Adams (2004) conclude about the role of previous elections?

Answer 12

No significance to the results- no link between parties changing ideologies and past electoral results

Question 13

What is the comparative manifesto project?

Answer 13

Examine the content of parties policy proposals (manifestos) and analyse their evolution over time.

Question 14

What do spatial modellers (Downs 1957) assume?

Answer 14

That parties aim to maximise votes. The aim is a position that means no party can improve vote share by moving position, given the policies of their rivals

Question 15

What does Budge tell us about parties ideologies?

Answer 15

The ideologies of the parties have a substantial amount of ‘temporal stability’ perhaps due to how they cannot forecast how this will affect them in the election

Question 16

What do we term Adam’s (2004) conclusion?

Answer 16

Dynamics of disadvantaged parties

Question 17

Suggestions of factors that could influence parties ideological position?

Answer 17

• Voting system/ Seat allocation
• Number of parties
• Policy preference of activists
• Past elections
• Public opinion

Question 18

What is the name of the hypothesis Adam (2004) et al rejected?

Answer 18

General dynamic representation hypothesis (parties systematically shift in response to public opinion)

Question 19

Reasons suggested for general dynamic representation being rejected?

Answer 19

• Party elites policy motivated
• Politicians misperceived public opinion
• Elections not won on policy but leaders and elections

Question 20

What is the alternation model?

Answer 20

In built party dynamics that reward alternation (e.g. external conditions, internal dynamics, party activists)

Question 21

What is party identification and what is its possible effect?

Answer 21

The parties cannot present the same policies, they need to be identifiable from the other parties. So may push away if the policies align too much with a rival party

Question 22

What is Bartle (2011) paper examining?

Answer 22

The reasons behind the 2010 UK general election result swing

Question 23

Quote on individuals and policies (Bartle)?

Answer 23

‘Individual voters know little about the details of politics and do not have coherent preferences’

Question 24

Polly Toynbee quote on UK politics, voters wishes?

Answer 24

‘Scandinavian levels of welfare with US levels of taxation’

Question 25

Bartle quote on individuals preferences for policy/randomness?

Answer 25

Changes in individual preferences may reflect random variation

Question 26

What does Bartle describe as valency issues?

Answer 26

Honesty in government, corruption free, crime (e.g. no one argues against them- judge on who they prefer)

Question 27

Bartle quote on motivations for parties?

Answer 27

‘Parties want to win elections’ but ‘parties have ideological or programmatic goals too’

Question 28

Problems with surveys of public opinion?

Answer 28

Bias in the question/responses

-But constant bias if questions remain the same

Question 29

What is a thermostatic effect with voters/parties?

Answer 29

Do parties change their policies in line with changes in voter behaviour/preferences

Question 30

Bartle conclusion on policy mood effects on parties?

Answer 30

Clear change in policy mood does not have a law like relationship with vote share

Question 31

What does Bartle suggest could shift the policy mood

Answer 31

If governments stick to expected UK roles (Conservatives small state etc) then the mood will move to the right under the Cons, and left under labour

Question 32

What figure does Bartle use as average vote loss share for the government?

Answer 32

3 points per election

Question 33

What does Bartle examine about the beliefs on the thermostatic effect?

Answer 33

Belief voters always want the opposite of government. Bartle uses graphs to show cyclical left to right shifts in public opinion, and that these shifts occur as opposite movements to whoever is in government.