In this article, I examine several models of voter behavior that are consistent with recent work in political psychology (Fiske and Tetlock, 1997) concerning incommensurability and individuals’ reluctance to make decisions involving explicit trade-offs between competing ideals or principles. In so doing, I show that one ramification of such cognitive dissonance is policy convergence in multidimensional (i.e. multi-issue) electoral competition between two parties or candidates. Furthermore, the predicted policy outcome is a weighted median, which represents, on each issue, each voter’s preferences to the degree that he or she is likely to use that issue to choose between the candidates.
Aldrich, John H. (1993) ‘Rational Choice and Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science37(1): 246-278.
2.
Alvarez, R. Michael and John Brehm (1995) ‘American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values’, American Journal of Political Science35: 1055-1082.
3.
Alvarez, R. Michael and John Brehm (2002) Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Ashworth, Scott (2005) ‘Campaign Effects with Ambiguity-averse Voters’, Mimeo, Princeton University.
5.
Bendor, Jonathan, Daniel Diermeier and Michael Ting (2003) ‘A Behavioral Model of Turnout’, American Political Science Review97(2): 261-280.
6.
Bendor, Jonathan, Sunil Kumar and David A. Siegel (2005) ‘V. O. Key Formalized: Retrospective Voting as Adaptive Behavior’, Mimeo, Stanford Graduate School of Business.
7.
Callander, Steven and Catherine Wilson (forthcoming) ‘Context Dependent Voting’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science.
8.
Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich and Peter Ordeshook (1970) ‘An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process’, American Political Science Review54: 426-448.
9.
Dickson, Eric, Catherine Hafer and Dimitri Landa (2006) ‘Cognition and Strategy: A Deliberation Experiment’. Paper Presented at 2006 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association.
10.
Downs, Anthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
11.
Duggan, John (2000) ‘Equilibrium Equivalence under Expected Plurality and Probability of Winning Maximization’, Mimeo, University of Rochester.
12.
Duggan, John and Mark Fey (2005) ‘Electoral Competition with Policy-motivated Candidates’, Games and Economic Behavior51(2): 490-552.
13.
Feldman, Stanley and John Zaller (1992) ‘The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State’, American Journal of Political Science36: 268-307.
14.
Fiske, Alan Page and Philip E. Tetlock (1997) ‘Taboo Trade-offs: Reactions to Transactions that Transgress the Spheres of Justice’, Political Psychology18(2): 255-297.
15.
Friedman, Jeffrey (ed.) (1996) The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
Glasgow, Garrett (2006) ‘Instability in Political Preferences Due to Ambivalence: A Reconsideration of Recent Evidence’Mimeo, UC-Santa Barbara.
17.
Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Hafer, Catherine and Dimitri Landa (2006) ‘Deliberation and Social Polarization’. Paper Presented at 2006 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association.
19.
Hafer, Catherine and Dimitri Landa (2007) ‘Deliberation as Self-discovery and the Institutions for Political Speech’, Journal of Theoretical Politics19(3): forthcoming.
20.
Humphreys, Macartan and Michael Laver (2006) ‘Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics and Majority Voting Equilibria’, Mimeo, Columbia University.
21.
Johnson, James (1996) ‘How Not to Criticize Rational Choice Theory: Pathologies of “Common Sense’”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences26(1): 77-91.
22.
Lavine, Howard (2001) ‘The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential Candidates’, American Journal of Political Science45: 915-929.
23.
McGraw, Kathleen M., Edward Hasecke and Kimberly Conger (2003) ‘Ambivalence, Uncertainty, and the Processes of Candidate Evaluation’, Political Psychology24: 421-448.
24.
Patty, John W. (2002) ‘Equivalence of Objective in Two Candidate Elections’, Public Choice112(1): 151-166.
25.
Patty, John W. (2005) ‘Local Equilibrium Equivalence in Probabilistic Voting Models’, Games and Economic Behavior51(2): 523-536.
26.
Patty, John W. (2006) ‘Loss Aversion, Presidential Responsibility, and Midterm Elections’, Electoral Studies25: 227-247.
27.
Patty, John W. (forthcoming) ‘Generic Difference of Expected Vote Share and Probability of Victory Maximization in Simple Plurality Elections with Probabilistic Voters’, Social Choice and Welfare.
28.
Penn, Elizabeth Maggie (2006) ‘Political Institutions and Social Identity’, Working Paper, Harvard University.
29.
Raz, Joseph (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
30.
Tetlock, Philip E., Orie V. Kristel, S. Beth Elson, Melanie C. Green and Jennifer S. Lerner (2000) ‘The Psychology of the Unthinkable: Taboo Trade-offs, Forbidden Base Rates, and Heretical Counterfactuals’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78(5): 853-870.
31.
Tversky, Amos (1972) ‘Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice’, Psychological Review79: 281-299.
