Elizabeth Simas

When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections

We add to the literature that examines the relationship between candidate valence and policy strategies by arguing that candidates intrinsically value both the policies and the personal character of the winning candidate. In making this argument, we distinguish between two dimensions of candidate valence: strategic valence refers to factors such as name recognition, fundraising ability, and campaigning skills, while character valence is composed of qualities that voters and candidates intrinsically value in office holders, including integrity, competence, and diligence. Our model considers challengers who value both the policies and the character-based valence of the incumbent and assumes that the incumbent’s policy position is fixed by prior commitments. Under these conditions, we show that challengers who are superior to the incumbent in their character-based valence have incentives to moderate their policy positions. We report empirical tests of this good-government result of our model, using data on t...

Risk Orientations and Policy Frames

In this article, we examine the effect of citizens’ risk orientations on policy choices that are framed in various ways. We introduce an original risk orientations scale and test for the relationship between risk orientations and policy preferences using an original survey experiment. We find that individuals with higher levels of risk acceptance are more likely to prefer probabilistic outcomes as opposed to certain outcomes. Mortality and survival frames influence the choices citizens make, but so does our individual-difference measure of risk acceptance. Finally, using a unique within-subject design, we find that risk acceptance undercuts susceptibility to framing effects across successive framing scenarios. The findings suggest that citizens’ risk orientations are consequential in determining their policy views and their susceptibility to framing effects.

Linking Party Platforms to Perceptions of Presidential Candidates’ Policy Positions, 1972–2000

If candidates sometimes seek to distinguish themselves from their parties and are ambiguous about their policy positions, to what extent do the policy platforms of parties affect individuals’ perceptions of presidential candidate positions? Using data from the American National Election Study and the Comparative Manifesto Project from 1972 to 2000, we show that citizens are able to use party platforms in their assessments of presidential candidates. We also demonstrate that an individual’s level of education is important in the process of linking Republican Party platforms to Republican presidential candidates. Our findings have important implications for the role of parties in presidential elections.