This paper addresses the question of how the agendas for political campaigns are determined and whether or not candidates discuss similar issues. Two candidates compete by choosing how to allocate their time across two different issues. The amount of time spent discussing an issue affects the level of uncertainty regarding a candidate. Results suggest voter distribution determines which candidate has an advantage in the election, and issue importance determines the amount of time a candidate has to devote to issues. In most cases, I find that candidates will discuss the most important issue and that dialogue between candidates is possible. When issues are equally important each candidate discusses the issue upon which he agrees with the decisive group of voters.
AlesinaAlberto and CukiermanAlex. 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics105: 829–850.
2.
AragonesEnriqueta, PostlewaiteAndrew. 2002. “Ambiguity in Election Games.” Review of Economic Design7: 233–255.
3.
AnsolabehereStephen, IyengarShanto. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership Over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” The Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335–357.
BerliantMarcus, KonishiHideo. 2005. “Salience: Agenda Choices by Competing Candidates.” Public Choice125: 129–149.
6.
BlackDuncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BudgeI. and FarlieD.J.1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections. Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.
8.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economics Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
9.
GlaeserEdward L., Ponzetto, GiacomoA., ShapiroJesse M.2005. “Strategic Extremism: Why Republicans and Democrats Divide on Religious Values.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics120: 1283–1330.
10.
HolianDavid B.2004. “He's Stealing My Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership.” Political Behavior26: 95-124.
11.
HotellingHarold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal39: 41–57.
12.
KaufmannKaren M.2004. “Disaggregating and Reexamining Issue Ownership and Voter Choice.” Polity36: 283–29.
13.
KaplanNoah, ParkDavid K., and RidoutTravis N.2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science50(3): 724–736.
14.
Laslier Jean-Francois. 2006. “Ambiguity in Electoral Competition.” Economics of Governance7: 195–210.
15.
MayerNonna, VincentTiberj. 2004. “Do Issues Matter? Law and Order in 2002 French Presidential Elections.” Pp. 33–46 in The French Voter: Before and after 2002 Elections, edited by MichaelLewis-Beck. Basingstoke, Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
PetrocikJohn R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
17.
PetrocikJohn R., BenoitWilliam L., and HansenGlenn J.2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly118(4): 599–626.
18.
RePassDavid E.1971. “Issue Salience and Party Choice.” American Political Science Review65: 389–400.
19.
SigelmanLee, BuellEmmett H.Jr. 2004. “Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns,1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science48(4): 650–661.
20.
SimonAdam F.2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
SidesJohn. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science36: 407–436.
22.
SellersPatrick. 1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” American Political Science Review92: 159–171.
23.
SouleyBoubacar, WicksRobert H.2005. “Tracking the 2004 Presidential Campaign Web Sites, Similarities and Differences.” American Behavioral Scientist49(4): 535–546.
24.
WalgraveStefaan, LefevereJonas, NuytemansMichiel. 2009. “Issue Ownership Stability and Change: How Political Parties Claim and Maintain Issues Through Media Appearances.” Political Communication26(2): 153–172.
