No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
JOHN ALDRICH* Hinich raises one basic point in his comments on my paper and provides several elaborations of it. The basic point is a very good one, to which I will make two responses. In my model, citizens calculate where parties stand on policies by examining the mean preference of those who are currently active in the party. Hinich's point is that such a calculation, and its use in citizens' utility functions, ignores the behavior or positioning of party nominees or other party leaders. The major criticism, then, is that any connection between the behavior of "elites" (i.e., candidates of leaders) and citizens is broken.
Hinich and I are in fundamental agreement, I believe, although we differ over some particulars. For example, I disagree that my assumption "is not in any way tied to the basic paradigm of positive theory...," in particular "that voters ... purposefully act in their perceived self-interests." Political parties have an impact on the political system that involves more than just constraining a particular nominee for a particular election. Rather, they nominate many candidates for many offices at many times, and they also have some impact on the behavior of their candidates once in office. Thus, a self-interested individual may determine that it is in his or her self-interest to contribute to a party by reference to what
π SIMILAR VOLUMES