The most analysed choice situation by electoral researchers is at the ballot box. In partially contested elections, such as in Britain or Spain, voters cannot vote for all parties in every region or constituency. We present a modelling approach to study rational voting behaviour that integrates such heterogeneous ballots and takes voting for the numerous parties therein seriously. The empirical application to the 2015 British Election demonstrates substantial insights not found when neglecting ballot composition heterogeneity or applying existing approaches.
AdamsJ, MerrillSIII and GrofmanB (2005) A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AgrestiA (2013) Categorical data analysis. 3rd ed Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3.
AlvarezRM and NaglerJ (1998) When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 55–96.
4.
AlvarezRM and NaglerJ (2000) A new approach for modelling strategic voting in multiparty elections. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 57–75.
5.
AlvarezRM, NaglerJ and BowlerS (2000) Issues, economics, and the dynamics of multiparty elections: The British 1987 general election. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 131–49.
6.
AlvarezRM, BoehmkeFJ and NaglerJ (2006) Strategic voting in British elections. Electoral Studies, 25(1), 1–19.
7.
AndersenR and HeathA (2002) Class matters: The persisting effects of contextual social class on individual voting in Britain, 1964-97. European Sociological Review, 18(2), 125–38.
8.
ChoS and EndersbyJW (2003) Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice, 114(3), 275–93.
9.
ElffM (2009) Social divisions, party positions, and electoral behaviour. Electoral Studies, 28(2), 297–308.
10.
EndersbyJW and GalatasSE (1998) British parties and spatial competition: Dimensions of party evaluation in the 1992 election. Public Choice, 97(3), 363–82.
11.
EvansG and TilleyJ (2012) The depoliticization of inequality and redistribution: Explaining the decline of class voting. The Journal of Politics, 74(4), 963–76.
12.
FanJ and ZhangW (1999) Statistical estimation in varying coefficient models. Annals of Statistics, 27(5), 1491–1518.
13.
FieldhouseE, GreenJ, EvansG, SchmittH, van der EijkC, MellonJ and ProsserC (2015a) British Election Study, 2015: General Election Results Dataset. Data File Version 2.2. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1162.1844. Version 2.2.
14.
FieldhouseE, GreenJ, EvansG, SchmittH, van der EijkC, MellonJ and ProsserC (2015b) British Election Study Internet Panel 2014-2015 (Waves 1-6). Data File Version 1.2. The University of Manchester. DOI: 10.15127/1.293723.
15.
GallegoM, SchofieldN, McAlisterK and JeonJS (2014) The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election. Public Choice, 158(3), 427–63.
16.
GlasgowG (2001) Mixed logit models for multiparty elections. Political Analysis, 9(2), 116–36.
17.
GlasgowG and GolderSN (2015) A new approach to the study of parties entering government. British Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 739–54.
18.
GreenJ and ProsserC (2016) Party system fragmentation and single-party government: The British general election of 2015. West European Politics, 39(6), 1299–1310.
19.
HastieT and TibshiraniR (1993) Varyingcoefficient models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 55(4), 757–96.
20.
HensherDA, RoseJM and GreeneWH (2015) Applied choice analysis. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
LabzinaE and SchofieldN (2015) Application of the variable choice logit model to the British general election of 2010. InSchofieldN and CaballeroG, editors, The political economy of governance. Institutions, political performance and elections (313-34)New York: Springer.
22.
LabzinaE, BarcelóJ and SchofieldN (2017) Valence and ideological proximity in the rise of nationalist parties: Spanish general elections, 2008 and 2011. InSchofieldN. and CaballeroG., editors, State, institutions and democracy (105-42). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
23.
LIMDEP/NLOGIT. Statistical & data analysis software LIMDEP/NLOGIT, Econometric Software, INC., by William H. Greene.
24.
LuX (2020) Discrete choice data with unobserved heterogeneity: A conditional binary quantile model. Political Analysis, 28(2), 147–67.
25.
MauererI (2016) A party-varying model of issue voting. A cross-national study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Munich (LMU), Germany.
26.
MauererI (2020) The neglected role and variability of party intercepts in the spatial valence approach. Political Analysis, 28(3), 303–17.
27.
MauererI and TutzG (2023) Heterogeneity in general multinomial choice models. Statistical Methods & Applications, 23, 129–48.
28.
MauererI and TutzG (2024) Vote choices and valence: Intercepts and alternate specifications. Political Analysis, 1–18. doi:10.1017/pan.2023.43.
29.
MauererI and WalterA (2024) Replication data for: Rational voting behavior accounting for heterogeneous ballots in british elections. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AV8RZI, Harvard Dataverse, V1
30.
MauererI, PößneckerW, ThurnerPW and TutzG (2015a) Modelling electoral choices in multiparty systems with high-dimensional data: A regularized selection of parameters using the lasso approach. Journal of Choice Modelling, 16(3), 23–42.
31.
MauererI, ThurnerPW and DebusM (2015b) Under which conditions do parties attract voters' reactions to issues? Party-varying issue voting in German elections 1987-2009. West European Politics, 38(6), 1251–73.
32.
MoralM and ZhirnovA (2018) Issue voting as a constrained choice problem. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 280–95.
33.
OscarssonH and RosemaM (2019) Consideration set models of electoral choice: Theory, method, and application. Electoral Studies, 57, 256–62.
34.
ParkBU, MammenE, LeeYK and LeeER (2015) Varying coefficient regression models: A review and new developments. International Statistical Review, 83(1), 36–64.
35.
QuinnKM, MartinAD and WhitfordAB (1999) Voter choice in multi-party democracies: A test of competing theories and models. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1231–47.
36.
SteenburghTJ (2008) The invariant proportion of substitution property (IPS) of discretechoice models. Marketing Science, 27(2), 300–7.
37.
ThurnerPW, MauererI, BortM, KlimaA and KüchenhoffH (2020) Integrating large-scale online surveys and aggregate data at the constituency level: The estimation of voter transitions in the 2015 British General Elections. Survey Research Methods, 14(5), 461–76.
38.
TrainKE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TutzG (2012) Regression for categorical data. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
YamamotoT (2014) A multinomial response model for varying choice sets, with application to partially contested multiparty elections. Working Paper, Corpus ID: 42230431.
Supplementary Material
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.
