2010/03/19 by Eric S. Dickson, Kenneth F. Scheve, Kenneth Scheve · 33 citations
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Affect (linguistics) #Culture, Economy, and Development Studies #Demographics #Economics #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Electoral geography #Empirical evidence #Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies #Intuition #Law #Microeconomics #Plural #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Positive economics #Psychology #Public economics #Social choice theory #Social group #Social identity theory #Social psychology #Sociology
paper · doi:10.1017/s0007123409990354
published in British Journal of Political Science 40(2), 349-375 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 2010/03/19 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
The empirical literature in comparative politics holds that social cleavages affect the number of candidates or parties when electoral institutions are ‘permissive’, but it lacks a theoretical account of the strategic candidate entry and exit decisions that ultimately determine electoral coalitions in plural societies. This article incorporates citizen-candidate social identities into game-theoretic models of electoral competition under plurality and majority-runoff electoral rules, indicating that social group demographics can affect the equilibrium number of candidates, even in non-permissive systems. Under plurality rule, the relationship between social homogeneity and the effective number of candidates is non-monotonic and, contrary to the prevailing Duvergerian intuition, for some demographic configurations even the effective number of candidates cannot be near two. Empirical patterns in cross-national presidential election results are consistent with the theoretical model.