Paths to victory in presidential elections: the setup power of noncompetitive states

Steven Brams, D. Marc Kilgour

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    In US presidential elections, voters in noncompetitive states seem not to count—and have zero power, according to standard measures of voting power—because they cannot influence the outcome in their states. But the electoral votes of these states are essential to a candidate’s victory, so they do count, but in a different way. We propose a simple model that enables us to measure the setup power of voters in noncompetitive states by modeling how these states structure the contest in the competitive states, as illustrated by the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 presidential elections. We define three measures of setup power—winningness, vulnerability, and fragility—and show how they pinpoint the advantages of the candidate who leads in electoral votes of noncompetitive states. In fact, this candidate won in all four elections.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)99-113
    Number of pages15
    JournalPublic Choice
    Volume170
    Issue number1-2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

    Fingerprint

    presidential election
    candidacy
    voter
    voting
    vulnerability
    election
    Presidential elections
    Voters
    Vote

    Keywords

    • Electoral College
    • Measure of voting power
    • Presidential elections
    • Setup power of noncompetitive states

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science
    • Economics and Econometrics

    Cite this

    Paths to victory in presidential elections : the setup power of noncompetitive states. / Brams, Steven; Kilgour, D. Marc.

    In: Public Choice, Vol. 170, No. 1-2, 01.01.2017, p. 99-113.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Brams, Steven ; Kilgour, D. Marc. / Paths to victory in presidential elections : the setup power of noncompetitive states. In: Public Choice. 2017 ; Vol. 170, No. 1-2. pp. 99-113.
    @article{26b8481c1df649659360475045d83315,
    title = "Paths to victory in presidential elections: the setup power of noncompetitive states",
    abstract = "In US presidential elections, voters in noncompetitive states seem not to count—and have zero power, according to standard measures of voting power—because they cannot influence the outcome in their states. But the electoral votes of these states are essential to a candidate’s victory, so they do count, but in a different way. We propose a simple model that enables us to measure the setup power of voters in noncompetitive states by modeling how these states structure the contest in the competitive states, as illustrated by the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 presidential elections. We define three measures of setup power—winningness, vulnerability, and fragility—and show how they pinpoint the advantages of the candidate who leads in electoral votes of noncompetitive states. In fact, this candidate won in all four elections.",
    keywords = "Electoral College, Measure of voting power, Presidential elections, Setup power of noncompetitive states",
    author = "Steven Brams and Kilgour, {D. Marc}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1007/s11127-016-0386-8",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "170",
    pages = "99--113",
    journal = "Public Choice",
    issn = "0048-5829",
    publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
    number = "1-2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Paths to victory in presidential elections

    T2 - the setup power of noncompetitive states

    AU - Brams, Steven

    AU - Kilgour, D. Marc

    PY - 2017/1/1

    Y1 - 2017/1/1

    N2 - In US presidential elections, voters in noncompetitive states seem not to count—and have zero power, according to standard measures of voting power—because they cannot influence the outcome in their states. But the electoral votes of these states are essential to a candidate’s victory, so they do count, but in a different way. We propose a simple model that enables us to measure the setup power of voters in noncompetitive states by modeling how these states structure the contest in the competitive states, as illustrated by the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 presidential elections. We define three measures of setup power—winningness, vulnerability, and fragility—and show how they pinpoint the advantages of the candidate who leads in electoral votes of noncompetitive states. In fact, this candidate won in all four elections.

    AB - In US presidential elections, voters in noncompetitive states seem not to count—and have zero power, according to standard measures of voting power—because they cannot influence the outcome in their states. But the electoral votes of these states are essential to a candidate’s victory, so they do count, but in a different way. We propose a simple model that enables us to measure the setup power of voters in noncompetitive states by modeling how these states structure the contest in the competitive states, as illustrated by the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 presidential elections. We define three measures of setup power—winningness, vulnerability, and fragility—and show how they pinpoint the advantages of the candidate who leads in electoral votes of noncompetitive states. In fact, this candidate won in all four elections.

    KW - Electoral College

    KW - Measure of voting power

    KW - Presidential elections

    KW - Setup power of noncompetitive states

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992397326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992397326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s11127-016-0386-8

    DO - 10.1007/s11127-016-0386-8

    M3 - Article

    VL - 170

    SP - 99

    EP - 113

    JO - Public Choice

    JF - Public Choice

    SN - 0048-5829

    IS - 1-2

    ER -