2. 1 The Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition Melvin J. Hinich

3. 2 The spatial theory of electoral competition developed by Davis and Hinich (1966) rests on the assumption that voter choices are functions of the squared Euclidean distance between a voter’s position in a political space and the positions of the candidates (or parties) standing for election.

4. 3 Euclidean Distance Model Suppose that there are N observers and M targets. Each observer at position reports the squared Euclidean distance to the targets at locations

5. 4 Latent Ideological Space 1 Issue positions cluster: If I know what you think on defense and environmental policy, I can guess what you think of school lunch subsidies. 2 Shared meaning: This clustering phenomenon is not purely atomistic, so that ideological positions such as “liberal” and “conservative” have similar meanings to different people. 3 Constraint: If the effective space of political conflict is “ideological” in the sense above, the strategies of candidates (and hence the choices for voters) in the policy space are highly constrained.

6. 5

7. 6

8. 7 2006 Private Survey

9. 8

10. 9 “The federal government of the United States is mostly incompetent.” “The federal government of the United States is mostly corrupt.” Strongly Agree29%49% Somewhat Agree3933 Somewhat Disagree 2410 Strongly Disagree5 4 Don’t know34 N1,000 “Candidate A is a current U.S. senator who has twice served in the president’s cabinet and has a reputation for knowing how to get things done in Washington. Candidate B is a current governor who has a reputation for challenging entrenched interests and not accepting ‘politics as usual.’ If both were running for president in 2008, which would you be more likely to support?” Candidate A54% Candidate B40 Don’t know6 N1,000

11. 10 Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System Extreme-Left (EL)Center-Left (CL) People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi P.-HADEP)Republican Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk P.-CHP) Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halkın P.-DEHAP)Democratic Left Party (Demokratik Sol Parti-DSP) Programmatic/Policy Platforms Ethnic Kurdish nationalistStrictly secularist Pro-EURelatively more state interventionist Support base is east and southeastern AnatoliaPro-EU Relatively more urban Obtaining Alevi support (CHP) Charismatic leader (DSP) Support base is western and coastal provinces

12. 11 Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System Center-Right (CR)Pro-Islamist Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi-ANAP)Felicity party (Saadet Partisi-SP) True Path Party (Doğru Yol Partisi-DYP)Justice & Development Party (Adalet&Kalkınma P.-AKP) Young Party (Genç Parti-GP)Nationalist Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi-MHP) Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi-BBP) Programmatic/Policy Platforms Secularist on policy matters but courting the brotherhoods Pro-Islamist Market oriented economic policy Pro-Islamist Sunni supporters, close w/ Islamist circles Relatively more developed rural support Relatively more eurosceptic Pro-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist Support base is western and coastal provinces Support base is central Anatolia Support base is western and coastal provinces (GP) Nationalist Ethnic Turkish nationalist, Sunni supporters Sunni supporters, Anti-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist Support base is central Anatolia (MHP)

13. 12 2001 Survey A nation-wide representative survey of urban population conducted during the chaotic weeks of the second economic crisis of February 2001 1201 1201 face-to-face interviews were conducted in 12 of the 81 provinces of Turkey The survey was run during 2/20 – 3/16 using a random sampling method that represents the nationwide voting age urban population based on the urban population figures of 1997 census data.

14. 13

15. 14

16. 15 Basic Independent Variables

17. 16 Vote Intentions for the November 3rd Election % 8,7 % 7,1 % 1,9 % 1,3 % 0,6 % 0,7 % 1,0 % 1,5 % 2,4 % 3,3 % 4,1 % 5,0 % 9,9 % 14,4 % 29,4 %0%10%20%30 AKP CHP GP DYP MHP DEHAP ANAP SP YTP DSP BBP Other Will not vote Will not vote for the existing parties Undecided DK/NA

18. 17

19. 18

20. 19

21. 20 Xenophobia & Political Efficacy XenophobiaXenophobia Foreigners who settle in our country harm our culture. Foreigners who settle in our country make our chances of finding a job more difficult Some should either love Turkey or leave it. I would not want a foreigner to be my neighbor Political efficacyPolitical efficacy Regular citizens like me have no power for changing political decisions in Turkey for their advantage. Turkey is being ruled by a small and powerful group. Whatever I do I don't think I can reach a better position in society

22. 21

23. 22

24. 23 Valence Question - Revitalizing the Economy

25. 24 March-2004 survey of nation-wide representative urban population (N=1,232)

26. 25

27. 26 ● 1st D.2nd D. Alevis -1.5 -3.8 Non-Alevis+0.3 -1.7

28. 27 ● CHP ● DEHAP ● DSP ● YTP ● GP ● AKP ● SP ● BBP ● MHP ● DYP ● ANAP ■ CHP ■ DSP ■ DYP ■ MHP ■ FP ■ Very religious leader ■ Prominent Businessman ■ HADEP ● 2002 ■ 2001 ♦ 2004 “Left” Secularist “Center” “Right” Pro-Islamist “Periphery” Reformist Pro-EU Kurdish Nationalist Status Quo Reactionary Anti-EU Turkish Nationalist -AKP remains as the only credible party with “centrist” positions and clear pro-EU stance -CHP left the reformist, pro-EU camp as well as its support concerning the protection and advancement of the Kurdish minority rights. CHP seems positioned to exploit anti-EU nationalist rhetoric. -”Right of center” is back into its original anti-EU position. CHP is likely to pull them down on this axis. -Is the Turkish center ready for another business take-over similar to the GP in 2002?