"... In PAGE 28: ... For 1994 and 1998 there is a signi#0Ccant tendency for electors who have higher values of #12 i to be more likely to vote than electors who havelower values of #12 i : conservative electors were especially mobilized in those two elections. *** Table1 about here *** In every year, the coordinating model passes the parameter-based tests of the conditions neces- sary for it to describe coordinating behavior. Table 2 reports the LR test statistics for the constraint #0B = 1, imposed separately for eachyear.... In PAGE 29: ... The House position was expected to be closer to the Democratic position in 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1990, closer to the Republican position in 1994 and 1998. The MLEs for #0B in the coordinating model are less than :5inevery year except one #28see Table1 #29, suggesting that electors expected the Presidenttobeweaker than the House in determining post-midterm policy. *** Table 4 about here *** The distribution of the ordering of electors apos; ideal points with respect to the post-election policies electors expect according to the coordinating model shows that the moderating mechanism of the coordinating model is capable of generating a midterm cycle of the kind emphasized by Alesina and Rosenthal #281989; 1995#29, though it need not do so.... In PAGE 37: ... NES survey respondents mayoverreport the frequency with which they vote. Among the 9,639 cases from years 1978#7B98 that we use to compute the parameter estimates reported in Table1 , the ! i -weighted percentage reporting having voted is, by year: 47.... In PAGE 38: ... 19. Table1 shows #0B 90 , #0B 94 , #1A 78 , #1A 86 , #1A 90 and #1A 98 to have MLEs equal to either 0:0or1:0, on the conceptual boundary of the parameter space. Consequently, the asymptotic distributions of the MLEs and the LR test statistics are complicated #28Moran 1971; Self and Liang 1987#29.... In PAGE 39: ...Table1 to tabulate that mixture distribution and estimate the con#0Cdence intervals of Table 3. 20.... In PAGE 48: ...524 .455 Note: Computed using the parameter MLEs in Table1 and 1978#7B98 ANES data. Table 5: Orderings of Ideal Points and Expected PartyPolicy Positions, byYear Ordering year #12 i #3C ~ #12 Mi ; ~ #12 i ~ #12 Mi #3C#12 i #3C ~ #12 i ~ #12 i #3C#12 i #3C ~ #12 Mi ~ #12 Mi ; ~ #12 i #3C#12 i #12 Di = #12 Ri amp; i =0 1978 19.... In PAGE 48: ... Entries show the percentage of electors in eachyear who have #12 Di #3C#12 Ri and the indicated ordering of ideal point and expected policy positions, or who have #12 Di = #12 Ri , or who lack policy position values #28 amp; i = 0#29. Computed using the parameter MLEs in Table1 and 1978#7B98 ANES data. Percentages for those with #12 Di #3E#12 Ri are, byyear: #12 i #3C ~ #12 i #285.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ... The rationale of this method is that it is robust, consistent, and straightforward. For a given distribution, the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) for its parameter is the mini- mum value of: log N Y i=1 f(xi; ) ! (4) Table1 lists the MLE of the parameters of the three chosen distributions. Finally, the data to be fitted out of the behavioral mod- els has to be prepared.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ...84. Looking at Table1 , the increase in the log likelihood when we move from imposing a constant variance in estimation III to include the power law term in estimation IV is very large. Twice the difference in the log likelihoods is 256.... ..."