In sequential primaries, fair representation of the electorate may be undermined by the New Hampshire effect. Simultaneous primaries address fair representation, as there is no New Hampshire effect, but may increase expenditures. We analyze these issues by studying heterogeneity in sequential and simultaneous contests. The nature of heterogeneity is crucial. If a player is stronger in every battle, then expenditures in sequential contests are smaller than in simultaneous ones, in line with the existing literature, and the stronger player is more likely to win in sequential than simultaneous contests. If players’ advantages alternate across battles, for sufficiently large advantages, expenditures in sequential contests are greater than in simultaneous ones, and the player who has the advantage later in sequential contests is more likely to win: dynamics affect representation. We interpret our results in light of the candidates’ advantages due to the different demographic composition of states and discuss novel testable implications.
AnsolabehereSHansenJMHiranoS, et al. (2007) The incumbency advantage in US primary elections. Electoral Studies26(3): 660–668.
2.
AnsolabehereSSnyder JrJM (2002) The incumbency advantage in US elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal1(3): 315–338.
3.
BarbieriSSerenaM (2022) Biasing dynamic contests between ex-ante symmetric players. Games and Economic Behavior136: 1–30.
BroockmanDESoltasEJ (2020) A natural experiment on discrimination in elections. Journal of Public Economics188: 104201.
6.
BuellEHMayerWG (2004) Enduring Controversies in Presidential Nominating Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
7.
CoxGWKatzJN (1996) Why did the incumbency advantage in US house elections grow?. American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
8.
DescampsAKeCPageL (2022) How success breeds success. Quantitative Economics13(1): 355–385.
9.
EpsteinGSHeizler-CohenO (2018) Minority groups and success in election primaries. Working Paper.
10.
FragaBLHassellHJ (2018) Are minority and women candidates penalized by party politics? Race, gender, and access to party support. Political Research Quarterly74(3): 540–555.
11.
FuQKeCTanF (2015) Success breeds success or “pride goes before a fall”?: Teams and individuals in multi-contest tournaments. Games and Economic Behavior94: 57–79.
12.
GauriotRPageL (2019) Does success breed success? A quasi-experiment on strategic momentum in dynamic contests. The Economic Journal129(624): 3107–3136.
13.
GelmanAKingG (1990) Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science34(4): 1142–1164.
14.
GerberERMortonRBRietzTA (1998) Minority representation in multimember districts. American Political Science Review92(01): 127–144.
15.
GreenwaldAGSmithCTSriramN, et al. (2009) Implicit race attitudes predicted vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy9(1): 241–253.
KlumppTPolbornMK (2006) Primaries and the new hampshire effect. Journal of Public Economics90(6-7): 1073–1114.
20.
KlumppTKonradKASolomonA (2019) The dynamics of majoritarian blotto games. Games and Economic Behavior117: 402–419.
21.
KnightBSchiffN (2010) Momentum and social learning in presidential primaries. Journal of Political Economy118(6): 1110–1150.
22.
KonradKA (2009) Strategy and Dynamics in Contests. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
KonradKAKovenockD (2009) Multi-battle contests. Games and Economic Behavior66(1): 256–274.
24.
KornackiS (2019) Journey to power: The history of black voters, 1976 to 2020. NBC News, 29 July.
25.
KrumerA (2013) Best-of-two contests with psychological effects. Theory and Decision75(1): 85–100.
26.
LeonhardtD (2020) Iowa should never go first again: The current system is a form of white privilege that warps the process. New York Times, 26 January. Available at: https://nyti.ms/2GmpGCH.
27.
MagoSDRazzoliniL (2019) Best-of-five contest: An experiment on gender differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization162: 164–187.
28.
MagoSDSheremetaRM (2019) New Hampshire effect: Behavior in sequential and simultaneous multi-battle contests. Experimental Economics22(2): 325–349.
29.
MagoSDSheremetaRMYatesA (2013) Best-of-three contest experiments: Strategic versus psychological momentum. International Journal of Industrial Organization31(3): 287–296.
30.
MaluegDAYatesAJ (2010) Testing contest theory: Evidence from best-of-three tennis matches. The Review of Economics and Statistics92(3): 689–692.
31.
MatsubayashiTUedaM (2011) Political knowledge and the use of candidate race as a voting cue. American Politics Research39(2): 380–413.
32.
MayerWG (2004) The basic dynamics of the contemporary nomination process: An expanded view. In: MayerWG (ed.) The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004. Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
MeierPFleppRRüdisserM, et al. (2019) Investigating the conditions for psychological momentum in the field: Evidence from men’s professional tennis. Available at SSRN 3438123.
34.
MeyerMA (1991) Learning from coarse information: Biased contests and career profiles. The Review of Economic Studies58(1): 15–41.
35.
MortonRBWilliamsKC (1999) Information asymmetries and simultaneous versus sequential voting. American Political Science Review93(1): 51–67.
36.
MosharyS (2020) Price discrimination in political advertising: Evidence from the 2012 US presidential elections. RAND Journal of Economics51(3): 615–649.
37.
PageLCoatesJ (2017) Winner and loser effects in human competitions. Evidence from equally matched tennis players. Evolution and Human Behavior38(4): 530–535.
38.
PageLPageK (2007) The second leg home advantage: Evidence from European football cup competitions. Journal of Sports Sciences25(14): 1547–1556.
39.
ParksGSRachlinskiJJEpsteinRA (2008) Implicit race bias and the 2008 presidential election: Much ado about nothing. University of Pennsylvania Law Review157: 210.
StrumpfKS (2002) Does government decentralization increase policy innovation? Journal of Public Economic Theory4(2): 207–241.
43.
Van de RijtAKangSMRestivoM, et al. (2014) Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(19): 6934–6939.
44.
ZeckhauserRJLeebaertD (Eds.) (1983) What Role for Government?: Lessons From Policy Research. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
