Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Political engineering: optimizing a U.S. Presidential candidate’s platform

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We explore the application of operations research to the problem of defining/refining the political strategy for a candidate in a U.S. Presidential election. We use Hierarchical Bayesian techniques to model criteria used by a stratified random sample of registered voters to evaluate a candidate/platform. We then use the estimated utility parameters as inputs to a model that finds the positions a candidate can take on the salient issues of the election that will optimize expected Electoral College votes conditional on the positions respondents perceive to have been taken by the opposing party’s nominee. This approach is unique in that it (i) considers the value that individual voters associate with various positions the candidates can take on various issues, (ii) considers the chronicity of the electorate’s perceptions of a candidate’s positions on the salient issues, and (iii) yields a solution that will optimize expected Electoral College votes. We demonstrate this model on data collected immediately prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (the most recent U.S. Presidential election not involving any potential candidate for the upcoming 2012 U.S. Presidential election), and we show how these data and the model can also be used to assess the perceived clarity of a candidate’s positions, the sensitivity of a candidate’s support to her/his perceived positions, and the viability of a third party candidate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Fewer and fewer candidates for public office are willing to complete a standard “stance on issues” survey (paraphrasing); “Completed position surveys are like red meat for your opposition.” (Source: Unnamed NPR political analyst circa June 2006.)

References

  • Aldrich, J. (1983). A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review, 77, 974–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., Aroroa, N., & Ginter, J. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, G., Arora, N., & Ginter, J. (1998). On the heterogeneity of demand. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., & Huber, J. (2001). Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization of choice experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, P., & Jacob, V. (1995). Triangulation in decision support systems: algorithms for product design. Decision Support Systems, 14, 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, P., & Jacob, V. (1996). Genetic algorithms for product design. Management Science, 42(8), 1105–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balz, D. (2005). Political polarization intensified in 2004 election. Washington Post, March 29.

  • Bargh, J. A., & Pratto, F. (1986). Individual construct accessibility and perception selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J., & Thein, R. D. (1985). Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the recall-judgment link: the case of information overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1129–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoud, J. E. (1997). The electoral lock thesis: the weighting bias component. PS, Political Science & Politics, 30(2), 189–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boller, P. (1996). Presidential campaigns. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. (1990). Traits versus issues: factor versus ideal-point analysis of candidate thermometer ratings. Political Analysis, 2, 97–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunell, T. L., & Grofman, B. (1997). The 1992 and 1996 Presidential elections: whatever happened to the republican electoral college lock? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27(2), 134–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camm, J., Cochran, J., Curry, D., & Kannan, S. (2006). Conjoint optimization: an exact branch-and-bound algorithm for the share-of-choice problem. Management Science, 52(3), 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS News (2004). Poll: polarization in America. New York, July 4.

  • Church, R., & ReVelle, C. (1974). The maximal covering location problem. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 23, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, J. (1997). Statistical characteristics of coverage optimization based on sample data. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

  • Curry, D., Cochran, J., Radhakrishnan, R., & Pinnell, J. (2012, forthcoming). Hierarchical Bayesian prediction methods in election politics: introduction and major test. Journal of Political Marketing.

  • Davis, O., Hinich, M., & Ordeshook, P. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64, 426–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Destler, I. M. (1996). The myth of the electoral lock. PS, Political Science & Politics, 29(3), 491–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1994). The spot: the rise of political advertising on television (3rd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duggan, J., & Fey, M. (2005). Electoral competition with policy-motivated candidates. Games and Economic Behavior, 51(2), 490–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1982). Ideology, issues and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 76, 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1983). Voting one issue at a time: the question of voter forecasts. American Political Science Review, 77, 435–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2010). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A. G., & King, G. (1994). A unified method of evaluating electoral systems and redistricting plans. American Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 514–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A. G., Katz, J. N., & King, G. (2004). Empirically evaluating the electoral college. In A. N. Crigler, M. R. Just & E. J. McCaffery (Eds.), Rethinking the vote: the politics and prospects of American electoral reform (pp. 75–90). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, N. (2004). The war of the flip flops (Time, Special Report). Campaign 2004, April 12.

  • Green, P., Krieger, A., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3), S56–S73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (2005). Thinking about the political impacts of the electoral college. Public Choice, 123, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B., Brunell, T., & Campagna, F. (1997). Distinguishing between the effects of swing ratio and bias on outcomes in the US electoral college, 1900–1992. Electoral Studies, 16(4), 471–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D., & Johnson, L. (1981). Applied discrete-choice modelling. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69–121). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E., King, G., & Mavin, G. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinich, M. (1977). Equilibrium in spatial voting: the median voter result is an artifact. Journal of Economic Theory, 16, 208–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinich, M., & Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of party competition. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, K. (1996). Packaging the presidency: a history and criticism of presidential advertising (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. J. (2005). Identities of competitive states in U.S. Presidential elections: electoral college bias or candidate-centered politics? Publius, 35(2), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Rossiter, D., & Pattie, C. (2005). Disproportionality and bias in US Presidential elections: how geography helped Bush defeat Gore but couldn’t help Kerry beat Bush. Political Geography, 24(8), 952–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1997a). Running scared: why America’s politicians campaign too much and govern too little. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. (1997b). The polarization of American political parties and mistrust of government. In J. Nye, P. Zelikow, & D. King (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. (2002). Instrumental or expressive voting? An empirical investigation based on the Hamburg state elections of September 21, 1997. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 31(5), 411–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. (2006). Beyond distance and direction. Conjoint measurement of policy preferences in comparison with the proximity and the directional model of voting—empirical findings from a methodological experiment. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 47(4), 596–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollman, K., Miller, J., & Page, S. (1997). Adaptive parties in spatial elections. American Political Science Review, 86, 929–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21(1), 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior, 11, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledyard, J. (1984). The pure theory of large two-candidate elections. Public Choice, 44, 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, J. (2004). Winning the debate over flip flopping. Online NewsHour, Oct. 5, 2004.

  • Lenk, P., DeSarbo, W., Green, P., & Young, M. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Taper, C. (2001). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbin, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of political reason: understanding and expanding the limits of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. (1995). Relating stated preference measures and model to choice in real markets: calibration of CV responses. In J. Bjornstand & J. Kahn (Eds.), The contingent valuation of environmental resources. Brookfield: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice and allocation experiments: a method based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and application. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1968). The revealed preferences of a public bureaucracy. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior (Working paper No. 199/BART 10), University of California, Berkeley. Reprinted in P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers of Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

  • McGinniss, J. (1969). The selling of the President 1968. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R., & Ordeshook, P. (1986). Information, elections, and the democratic ideal. The Journal of Politics, 48, 909–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menefee-Libey, D. (2000). The triumph of campaign-centered politics. New York: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach, B. (1997). The business of elections. Quality and Quantity, 31(4), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morello, J. (2001). Selling the President, 1920—Albert D. Lasker, advertising, and the election of Warren G. Harding. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H., Gofman, A., Tungaturthy, P., Manchaiah, M., & Cohen, D. (2000). Research, politics and the web can mix. considerations, experiences, trials, tribulations in adapting conjoint measurement to optimizing a political platform as if a consumer product. In R. Brookes (Ed.), Marketing research in a .com environment. Amsterdam: ESOMAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, B. (1994). The marketing of the President: political marketing as campaign strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. C. (1974). Partisan bias in the electoral college. The Journal of Politics, 37, 1033–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nimmo, D. (1999). The political persuaders: the technique of modern election campaigns. Englewood Cliffs: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, P. (1970). Extensions to a mathematical model of the electoral process and implications for the theory of responsible parties. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 14, 43–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, P. (1976). The spatial theory of elections: a review and critique. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappi, F. (2003). Voting as an expression of revealed preference—application of conjoint analysis to the Hamburg municipal elections of September 21, 1997. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 44(1), 110–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillip, J., Ardoin, P. J., & Parsons, B. M. (2007). Partisan bias in the electoral college: cheap states and wasted votes. Politics & Policy, 35(2), 342–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, E. H. (1957). A history of Presidential elections. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., Allenby, G., & McCullock, R. (2005). Bayesian statistics in marketing. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, A., Israel, F. L., & Frent, D. J. (Eds.) (1994). Running for President: the candidates and their images: 1900–1992. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423 and 623–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L., Olafsson, S., & Chen, Q. (2001). An optimization framework for product design. Management Science, 47(12), 1681–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toobin, J. (2002). Too close to call: the thirty-six-day battle to decide the 2000 election. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C., van der Brug, W., Kroh, M., & Franklin, M. (2006). Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 424–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittink, D., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, J. (2006). Group seeks cross-party ticket for 2008 elections. The Online News Hour, May 31.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing & Analysis, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, 71272, USA

    James J. Cochran

  2. Department of Marketing, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    David J. Curry

  3. Transfreight, LLC, Erlanger, KY, 41018, USA

    Rajesh Radhakrishnan

  4. MarketVision Research, Cincinnati, OH, 45242, USA

    Jon Pinnell

Authors
  1. James J. Cochran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Curry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajesh Radhakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon Pinnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Cochran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cochran, J.J., Curry, D.J., Radhakrishnan, R. et al. Political engineering: optimizing a U.S. Presidential candidate’s platform. Ann Oper Res 215, 63–87 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1189-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1189-z

Keywords