I study elections where some candidates have an advantage unrelated to their competence. Although this advantage is negligible in general elections, it is significant during candidate selection by parties. Further, the built-in advantages of some candidates may be a measure of the political system’s inefficiency. The selection of candidates by a party is a crucial institution for this inefficiency to exist. Theoretically, I show that the preciseness of the party’s estimation of candidates’ chances of winning a general election has a non-monotonic effect.
AdamsJMerrillSIII (2008) Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science52(2): 344–359.
2.
AragonesEPalfreyTR (2002) Mixed equilibrium in a downsian model with a favored candidate. Journal of Economic Theory103(1): 131–161.
3.
ArrowKJ (1998) What has economics to say about racial discrimination?The Journal of Economic Perspectives12(2): 91–100.
4.
AsakoYIidaTMatsubayashiT, et al. (2015) Dynastic politicians: theory and evidence from Japan. Japanese Journal of Political Science16(1): 5–32.
5.
AshworthSBueno de MesquitaE (2008) Electoral selection, strategic challenger entry, and the incumbency advantage. The Journal of Politics70(4): 1006–1025.
6.
BernhardtDCâmaraOSquintaniF (2011) Competence and ideology. The Review of Economic Studies78(2): 487–522.
7.
BoudreauCElmendorfCSMacKenzieSA (2019) Racial or spatial voting? The effects of candidate ethnicity and ethnic group endorsements in local elections. American Journal of Political Science63(1): 5–20.
8.
BuisseretPWeeldenRV (2022) Polarization, valence, and policy competition. The American Economic Review: Insights4(3): 341–352.
9.
CaillaudBJeanT (2002) Parties as political intermediaries. Quarterly Journal of Economics117(4): 1453–1489.
10.
CarrilloJDThomasM (2001) Electoral competition and politician turnover. European Economic Review45(1): 1–25.
11.
CarsonJLEngstromEJRobertsJM (2007) Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in congress. American Political Science Review101(2): 289–301.
12.
CoateSLouryGC (1993) Will affirmative-action policies eliminate negative stereotypes?The American Economic Review83(5): 1220–1240.
13.
CoxGWKatzJN (1996) Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. house elections grow?American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
14.
CruzCLabonneJQuerubinP (2017) Politician family networks and electoral outcomes: evidence from the Philippines. The American Economic Review107(10): 3006–3037.
15.
Dal BóEDal BóPSnyderJ (2009) Political dynasties. The Review of Economic Studies76(1): 115–142.
FangHMoroA (2011) Theories of statistical discrimination and affirmative action: a survey In: Handbook of Social Economics. Elsevier, Vol. 1, 133–200.
18.
FeinsteinBD (2010) The dynasty advantage: family ties in congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly35(4): 571–598.
19.
FivaJHSmithDM (2018) Political dynasties and the incumbency advantage in party-centered environments. American Political Science Review112(3): 706–712.
20.
GeysB (2017) Political dynasties, electoral institutions and politicians’ human capital. The Economic Journal127(605): F474–F494.
21.
JacksonMOLaurentMMattesK (2007) Nomination processes and policy outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Political Science2(1): 67–92.
22.
JohnsRShephardM (2007) Gender, candidate image and electoral preference. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations9(3): 434–460.
23.
LeeA (2020) Incumbency, parties, and legislatures: theory and evidence from India. Comparative Politics52(2): 311–331.
24.
McFaddenD (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: ZarembkaP (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press, 105.
25.
McKernanB (2011) Politics and celebrity: a sociological understanding. Sociology Compass5(3): 190–202.
26.
MeirowitzA (2005) Informational party primaries and strategic ambiguity. Journal of Theoretical Politics17(1): 107–136.
27.
OwenGBernardG (2006) Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests. Social Choice and Welfare26(3): 547–569.
28.
PhelpsES (1972) The statistical theory of racism and sexism. The American Economic Review62(4): 659–661.
29.
PotrafkeNRöschMUrsprungH (2020) Election systems, the ‘Beauty Premium’ in politics, and the beauty of dissent. European Journal of Political Economy64: 101900.
30.
QuerubinP (2016) Family and politics: dynastic persistence in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Political Science11(2): 151–181.
31.
SchwabS (1986) Is statistical discrimination efficient?The American Economic Review76(1): 228–234.
32.
SerraG (2011) Why primaries? The party’s tradeoff between policy and valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics23(1): 21–51.
33.
SmithDM (2012) Succeeding in Politics: Dynasties in Democracies. San Diego: University of California. PhD diss.
34.
SmithDMMartinS (2017) Political dynasties and the selection of cabinet ministers. Legislative Studies Quarterly42(1): 131–165.
35.
Van CoppenolleB (2017) Political dynasties in the UK house of commons. Legislative Studies Quarterly42(3): 449–475.
36.
ZwarunLTorreyA (2011) Somebody versus nobody: celebrity status in an election. The Social Science Journal48(4): 672–680.
