I present a model in which different candidates are stronger on different issues and an incumbent must decide how many resources to devote to each of two different issues. I derive conditions under which the incumbent has an incentive to devote an inefficiently high amount of resources to the issue in which the incumbent is weakest so that voters will be relatively more concerned about the issue on which the incumbent is strongest and be more inclined to vote for a candidate that is strong on that issue. I find that incumbents are especially likely to use an inefficient resource allocation if voters care a lot about the issue in which the incumbent is strongest before the election or they will care moderately about multiple issues after the election.
AdamsJMerrillSIII (2008) Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science52: 344–359.
2.
AlesinaATabelliniG (1990) A positive theory of fiscal debts and government debt. Review of Economic Studies57: 403–414.
3.
AragonesEPalfreyTR (2002) Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate. Journal of Economic Theory103: 131–161.
4.
AragonesEPalfreyTR (2005) Spatial competition between two candidates of differing quality: The effects of candidate ideology and private information. In: Austen-SmithDDugganJ (eds), Social Choice and Strategic Decisions: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey S. Banks. Berlin: Springer.
5.
AshworthSBueno de MesquitaE (2009) Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior67: 191–216.
6.
AshworthSShottsKW (2010) Does informative media commentary reduce politicians’ incentives to pander?Journal of Public Economics11: 838–847.
7.
BerrebiCKlorEF (2006) On terrorism and electoral outcomes: Theory and evidence from the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution50: 899–925.
8.
Canes-WroneBHerronMCShottsKW (2001) Leadership and pandering: A theory of executive policy making. American Journal of Political Science45: 532–550.
9.
Canes-WroneBShottsKW (2007) When do elections encourage ideological rigidity?American Political Science Review101: 273–288.
10.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics48: 370–389.
11.
DellisA (2009) The salient issue of issue salience. Journal of Public Economic Theory11: 203–231.
12.
DixitALondreganJ (1996) The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics58: 1132–1155.
13.
EganPJ (2009) Issue ownership and representation: A theory of legislative responsiveness to constituency opinion. New York University Typescript.
14.
GrosecloseT (2001) A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science45: 862–886.
15.
GrosecloseT (2007) ‘One and a half’ dimensional preferences and majority rule. Social Choice and Welfare28: 321–335.
16.
HodlerRLoertscherSRohnerD (2010) Inefficient policies and incumbency advantage. Journal of Public Economics94: 761–767.
17.
HummelP (2010) On the nature of equilibria in a Downsian model with candidate valence. Games and Economic Behavior70: 425–445.
18.
KartikNMcAfeeRP (2007) Signaling character in electoral competition. American Economic Review97: 852–870.
19.
KaufmannKM (2004) Disaggregating and reexamining issue ownership and voter choice. Polity36: 283–299.
20.
KrasaSPolbornM (2010) Competition between specialized candidates. American Political Science Review104: 745–765.
21.
MajumdarSMukandSW (2004) Policy gambles. American Economic Review94: 1207–1222.
22.
NorpothHBuchananB (1992) Wanted: The education president: Issue trespassing by political candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly56: 87–99.
23.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40: 825–850.
24.
PetrocikJRBenoitWLHansenGJ (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly118: 599–626.
25.
PopeJCWoonJ (2009) Measuring changes in American party reputations, 1939–2004. Political Research Quarterly62: 653–661.
26.
SellersPJ (1998) Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Political Science Review92: 159–171.
27.
SoubeyranR (2009) Does a disadvantaged candidate choose an extremist position?Annales d’Economie et de Statistique93: 328–348.
28.
SoubeyranRGautierP (2008) Political cycles: Issue ownership and the opposition advantage. Journal of Public Economic Theory10: 685–716.
29.
WilkinsonSI (2006) Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
