The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process
Abstract
The fundamental process of politics is the aggregation of citizens' preferences into a collective—a social—choice. We develop, interpret, and explain non-technically in this expository essay the definitions, assumptions, and theorems of a mathematical model of one aggregative mechanism—the electoral process. This mechanism is conceptualized here as a multidimensional model of spatial competition in which competition consists of candidates affecting turnout and the electorate's perception of each candidate's positions, and in which the social choice is a policy package which the victorious candidate advocates. This approach, inaugurated by Downs's An Economic Theory of Democracy, and falling under the general rubric “spatial models of party competition,” has been scrutinized, criticized, and reformulated. To clarify the accomplishments of this formulation we identify and discuss in section 2 the general democratic problem of ascertaining a social preference. We review critically in section 3 the definitions and assumptions of our model. We consider in sections 4 and 5 the logic of a competitive electoral equilibrium. We assume in section 4 that the electorate's preferences can be summarized and represented by a single function; the analysis in section 5 pertains to competition between two organizational structures or two opposed ideologies (i.e., when two functions are required to summarize and represent the electorate's preference). Finally, we suggest in section 6 a conceptualization of electoral processes which facilitates extending and empirically testing our model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714001595 · Cited by 2,700
Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4695 · Cited by 1,155
The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data
CLINTON, J., JACKMAN, S., & RIVERS, D. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404001194 · Cited by 1,153
A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111172 · Cited by 989
PARTY POLARIZATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138 · Cited by 827
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1970-06
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 426-448
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2313814871
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 83.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1953842
- The paper
- Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1970). An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953842
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.