Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-bzg56 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-10T07:16:58.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

MICHAEL TOMZ  and
ROBERT P. VAN HOUWELING
MICHAEL TOMZ*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
ROBERT P. VAN HOUWELING*
Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
*
Michael Tomz is Associate Professor, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6044. E-mail: [email protected].
Robert P. Van Houweling is Assistant Professor, University of Califorina at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines a fundamental aspect of democracy: the relationship between the policy positions of candidates and the choices of voters. Researchers have suggested three criteria—proximity, direction, and discounting—by which voters might judge candidates' policy positions. More than 50 peer-reviewed articles, employing data from more than 20 countries, have attempted to adjudicate among these theories. We explain why existing data and methods are insufficient to estimate the prevalence of these criteria in the electorate. We then formally derive an exhaustive set of critical tests: situations in which the criteria predict different vote choices. Finally, through survey experiments concerning health care policy, we administer the tests to a nationally representative sample. We find that proximity voting is about twice as common as discounting and four times as common as directional voting. Furthermore, discounting is most prevalent among ideological centrists and nonpartisans, who make sophisticated judgments that help align policy with their preferences. These findings demonstrate the promise of combining formal theory and experiments to answer previously intractable questions about democracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 303 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, James, Bishin, Benjamin G., and Dow, Jay K.. 2004. “Representation in Congressional Campaigns: Evidence for Discounting/Directional Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 66: 348–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James F., Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwin, Duane F. 1997. “Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales: Which Are Better?” Sociological Methods and Research 25: 318–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L. 2007. “Ideology and Evaluation in an Experimental Setting: Comparing the Proximity and the Directional Models.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 263–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Eli P. III. 1980. “The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 17: 407–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1985. “The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.” Journal of Politics 47: 230–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two–Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994. “Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 99: 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary et al. 2004. “Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research.” American Political Science Review 98: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Wand, Jonathan. 2007. “Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes.” Political Analysis 15: 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 50: 537–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, Jon A., and Fabrigar, Leandre R.. 1997. “Designing Rating Scales for Effective Measurement in Surveys.” In Survey Measurement and Process Quality, ed. Lyberg, Lars et al. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. 1998. “Downsian Voting and the Separation of Powers.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1180–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. 2005. “Testing Proximity Versus Directional Voting Using Experiments.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and King, Gary. 1999. “No Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity Voting.” Political Analysis 8: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. “Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems.” American Political Science Review 85: 1107–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1998. “On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped.” Journal of Politics 60: 653–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III. 1995. “Discriminating Between the Directional and Proximity Spatial Models of Electoral Competition.” Electoral Studies 14: 273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 1997. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 63: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, Irwin L., and Rabinowitz, George. 1997. “On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 737–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert et al. 1991. “Rating Scales: Numeric Values May Change the Meaning of Scale Labels.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 570–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. “Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 91: 865–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.