Picking upwardly from
yesterday's post, I left off amongst the observation that if elections plough on drive platforms, thence they are strategic contests betwixt candidates, together with if they plough on "valence" characteristics, similar competence together with honesty, thence they are
not strategic contests.
Warning: I'm going to produce to a greater extent than or less math. It volition hold out uncomplicated math, though, together with I'll explicate everything.
In normative terms, are nosotros comfortable amongst a diminished role for valence characteristics? Economic theory allows us to build what nosotros telephone telephone "utility functions," inwards which nosotros plug inwards a bunch of values for the materials nosotros like, together with the equation spits out a number to enjoin us how happy a individual is, inwards numerical terms. Observe:
(1) U(policy) = - | policy -
i |
Simple equation. The parameter,
i, represents an actor's "ideal point" for policy, together with the equation takes the absolute value of the distance betwixt that actor's ideal betoken together with whatever given policy, together with thence multiplies it past times -1 thence that bigger distances are bad, regardless of direction. Simple. A policy is 10 units away? -10 "utils." A policy is 100 units away? -100 utils. Yes, the units are called, "utils." Fucking economists...
So, how produce nosotros combine that with, say, a candidate's marking on a dimension representing honesty? Let's say every candidate gets a marking along an honesty dimension. Let's say the policy dimension goes from -1 to +1, only similar the NOMINATE scale nosotros utilization to mensurate congressional voting scores. For the sake of consistency, let's say honesty every bit good goes from -1 to +1. Here's a utility function:
(2) U(policy, honesty) = - | policy - i | + honesty
That's fine, right? They're additive. If a candidate is to a greater extent than honest, that's a bonus. More dishonest, that's a negative. The make of scores is -3 (2 units away together with a lying sack of shit) to +1 (totally honest, together with correct at the voter's ideal point). But, I could write the equation differently.
(3) U(policy, honesty) = - | policy - i | + 10000000000*honesty
See how that changes things? Policy no longer matters that much. It is at in ane trial all virtually honesty, only because of that multiplier. Is Equation three to a greater extent than correct or incorrect than Equation 2? Nope. As far every bit economical theory is concerned, both are only dandy. Microeconomic theory begins amongst utility functions as
assumptions. But, at that topographic point are normative issues built into them. That concluding utility role is a utility role that values honesty to a greater extent than than policy, given the scales, together with that isn't intrinsically wrong.
What is to a greater extent than of import for democracy? Convergence to the median voter, or honesty amid elected officials? Um, I haven't the slightest fucking clue. Like I said, that's a value judgment.
But, it is a value judgment critical to the query of whether or non nosotros are comfortable amongst the notion of campaigns existence strategic contests, because if nosotros are non comfortable amongst campaigns ignoring large gaps inwards valence characteristics, thence nosotros should non hold out comfortable amongst campaigns turning on strategy, which brings me dorsum to the inaugural off of
yesterday's post. Trump, together with his apologists desire to deflect all attending virtually 2016 shenanigans away from Russia, Comey, etc., together with towards whatever supposed strategic mistakes Clinton made. But, if nosotros are non comfortable amongst elections that ignore gaps inwards valence traits, that's a work because, every bit I direct maintain commented frequently, peculiarly during the "Assessing democracy..." series, at that topographic point isn't a "valence" trait on which Trump could potentially marking higher than Clinton.
Of course, I direct maintain solely addressed the basic questions of spatial theory hither because I'm a spatial theorist, but really, Trump together with his apologists haven't been talking virtually spatial theory. They direct maintain been maxim that Clinton lost by, for example, non campaigning inwards Wisconsin. That's a split upwardly element of strategy anyway, opening upwardly a split upwardly laid upwardly of both normative together with empirical questions. That is an declaration that a drive is a chess game betwixt candidates inwards which voters aren't fifty-fifty actors at all, which is a
really interesting argument. I gauge I direct maintain to a greater extent than to write...