Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper offers a new conceptual framework for thinking about competitive elections and candidate positioning. The paper presents and empirically tests a deterrence-based game-theoretic model built on the argument that incumbents do not moderate to defeat opponents-- they moderate to dissuade opponents from challenging them. When they face opponents, it is because they did not moderate. The deterrence model is based on more empirically justifiable assumptions than the spatial voting model, and in important ways, its predictions are more accurate than those of the spatial voting model. The model also has important implications for political reforms aimed at increasing competition in congressional elections. Specifically, promoting competitive elections by promoting challenger entry is likely to have perverse consequences by increasing ideological polarization in Congress