Exploring uncharted territory: The irish presidential election, 1997

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 631-650

  Van Der Brug, Wouter ^a   Van Der Eijk, Cees ^a   Marsh, Michael ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034395749     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400000272     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
2. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
3. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
4. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
5. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
6. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
7. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
8. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
9. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
10. K. Reif and H. Schmitt, 'Nine Second-order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results', European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3-44; P. Norris, 'Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 109-14; K. Reif, 'European Elections as Member State Second-order Elections Revisited', European Journal of Political Research, 31 (1997), 115-24; M. Marsh and M. Franklin, 'The Foundations: Unanswered Questions from the Study of European Elections, 1979-1994', in C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, eds, Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 11-32; E.V. Oppenhuis, C. van der Eijk and M. Franklin, 'The Party Context: Outcomes', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 287-306; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and E.V. Oppenhuis, 'The Strategic Context: Party Choice', in van der Eijk and Franklin, Choosing Europe? pp. 366-90; C. J. Anderson and D. S. Ward, 'Barometer Elections in Comparative Perspective', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 447-60; M. Franklin, 'Electoral Participation', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 216-35; C. van der Eijk, M. Franklin and M. Marsh, 'What Voters Teach Us about Europe-wide Elections: What Europe-wide Elections Teach Us about Voters', Electoral Studies, 15 (1996), 149-66. In a somewhat different sense see also E. A. Bakker and A. Lijphart, 'A Critical Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden', British Journal of Political Science, 10 (1980), 521-5.
11. M. S. Shugart and J. M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
12. It was not at all clear that an election would be required in 1997. Had the incumbent Mary Robinson chosen to run again it is likely that she would have been unopposed. Once she declared her intention in March to take up a position with the United Nations, an election seemed likely, although the likelihood that John Hume, leader of Northern Ireland's Social Democratic Labour Party (SDLP) would be an unopposed nominee remained a real possibility until early September. Only once he decided to stay in politics in Northern Ireland was an election a certainty.
13. For more detail on the nominations and campaign, see M. Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', in M. Marsh and P. Mitchell, eds, How Ireland Voted 1997 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview/PSAI Press, 1999), pp. 215-42; John Doyle, 'The Irish Presidential Election', Irish Political Studies, 13 (1998), 135-44.
14. For more detail on the nominations and campaign, see M. Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', in M. Marsh and P. Mitchell, eds, How Ireland Voted 1997 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview/PSAI Press, 1999), pp. 215-42; John Doyle, 'The Irish Presidential Election', Irish Political Studies, 13 (1998), 135-44.
15. On 21 September thirteen former employees of Adi Roche's organization announced they would not be supporting her, because her style of leadership was too authoritarian and dictatorial. Attacks on McAleese followed a story in the Sunday Business Post which alleged that she had republican sympathies (see fn. 3) and came particularly from Derek Nally's organization and later from John Bruton, leader of FG; see Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', and Doyle, The Irish Presidential Election'.
16. On 21 September thirteen former employees of Adi Roche's organization announced they would not be supporting her, because her style of leadership was too authoritarian and dictatorial. Attacks on McAleese followed a story in the Sunday Business Post which alleged that she had republican sympathies (see fn. 3) and came particularly from Derek Nally's organization and later from John Bruton, leader of FG; see Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', and Doyle, The Irish Presidential Election'.
17. Four polls were published in the last week of the campaign, all predicting a comfortable win for McAleese. In addition to two IMS polls (see fn. 13) there were also two MRBI/Irish Times polls, published on 25 and 29 October. Several commentators blamed the polls for the low turnout and there was media discussion, for instance in RTE's The Politics Programme the following week, of the value of banning polls in the last part of a campaign.
18. For details, see J. Coakley and M. Gallagher, eds, Politics in the Republic of Ireland, 3rd edn (London: Routledge/PSAI Press, 1999), Appendix 2. See Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', p. 229, for a discussion of turnout in presidential elections.
19. For details, see J. Coakley and M. Gallagher, eds, Politics in the Republic of Ireland, 3rd edn (London: Routledge/PSAI Press, 1999), Appendix 2. See Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', p. 229, for a discussion of turnout in presidential elections.
20. One of the advantages of the transferable vote system is that we get some idea of the preference orderings of voters from the manner in which support transfers between candidates. However, in this instance Nally, Scallon and Roche were all eliminated together as the combined of the bottom two candidates was insufficient to bridge the gap between third (Scallon) and second (Banotti) and hence there are no details on whose vote transferred where. However, polls suggested supporters of Nally and Scallon favoured McAleese, while Roche's voters preferred Banotti. For a description of the single transferable vote (STV) system in the Irish context, see R. Sinnott, 'The Electoral System', in Coakley and Gallagher, Politics in the Republic of Ireland, pp. 99-126.
21. W.H. van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs: A New Unfolding Model with Application to European Party Activists (Amsterdam: CT Press, 1984); W.H. van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back', in M. Fennema, C. van der Eijk and H. Schijf, eds, In Search of Structure: Essays in Social Science and Methodology (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993), pp. 45-62; J. Tillie, Party Utility and Voting Behavior (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1995).
22. W.H. van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs: A New Unfolding Model with Application to European Party Activists (Amsterdam: CT Press, 1984); W.H. van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back', in M. Fennema, C. van der Eijk and H. Schijf, eds, In Search of Structure: Essays in Social Science and Methodology (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993), pp. 45-62; J. Tillie, Party Utility and Voting Behavior (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1995).
23. W.H. van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs: A New Unfolding Model with Application to European Party Activists (Amsterdam: CT Press, 1984); W.H. van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back', in M. Fennema, C. van der Eijk and H. Schijf, eds, In Search of Structure: Essays in Social Science and Methodology (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993), pp. 45-62; J. Tillie, Party Utility and Voting Behavior (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1995).
24. H. Semetko, 'The Media', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris, eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 254-79.
25. C.H. Coombs, A Theory of Data, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley, 1975 [1964]).
26. Coombs, A Theory of Data; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'; van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs.
27. Coombs, A Theory of Data; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'; van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs.
28. Coombs, A Theory of Data; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'; van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs.
29. Multi-dimensional spatial representations would pose so few restrictions on the data that very different configurations would all fit the data perfectly, which implies that they would be trivial. Unidimensional representations of three or more stimuli will not by necessity fit well, so that if they do fit, a relevant empirical result has been attained.
30. A good overview of different unfolding models can be found in a special issue of the journal Kwantitatieve Methoden, 42 (January 1993) devoted to the topic.
31. For an introduction to MUDFOLD see Van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs; W.H. van Schuur, 'Stochastic Unfolding', in W. E. Saris and I. N. Gallhofer, eds, Sociometric Research, Vol. I: Data Collection and Scaling (London: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 137-58; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'.
32. For an introduction to MUDFOLD see Van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs; W.H. van Schuur, 'Stochastic Unfolding', in W. E. Saris and I. N. Gallhofer, eds, Sociometric Research, Vol. I: Data Collection and Scaling (London: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 137-58; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'.
33. For an introduction to MUDFOLD see Van Schuur, Structure in Political Beliefs; W.H. van Schuur, 'Stochastic Unfolding', in W. E. Saris and I. N. Gallhofer, eds, Sociometric Research, Vol. I: Data Collection and Scaling (London: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 137-58; van Schuur, 'From Mokken to MUDFOLD and Back'.
34. Unfortunately the advantages of MUDFOLD do not come without cost: its algorithm cannot handle full rank orders, but only partial rankings (pick k out of n) or preference ratings. Consequently, in order to use this algorithm, we must either transform the data so that they can be interpreted as partial rankings, or treat them as if they were ratings. Transforming full rankings to partial rankings is relatively simple. Partial orderings are derived from the full rank ordering of candidates by giving a score of 1 to the k highest preferences, and 0 to all lower preferences (i.e.: pick two out of five yields for every respondent a string of five scores, one for each candidate, two of which are 1, the rest being 0). By using different values for k (the number of 'picked' items) and comparing the resulting unfolding analyses one can assess whether or not all distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are equally informative in terms of a common structure. Interpreting rankings as ratings involves an inversion of preference ranks: the first preference candidate is assigned the highest preference score, and so on. Variations of such ratings can be obtained by collapsing categories. Comparing unfolding results from these different recoded preferences helps to assess which distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are structured in a joint scale and which are not. Because of the need to transform our data to analyse them with MUDFOLD, we performed all analyses also with a different program for unidimensional unfolding, UNFOLD. As each of these algorithms has their own particular pros and cons, we used both and compared their results. UNFOLD can handle proper rank-order data, and thus requires no re-coding of the data. However, because UNFOLD is a deterministic program, there is no way to test its results against a null-hypothesis of random response, which is one of the strong points of MUDFOLD. The UNFOLD approach has been documented by R. van Blokland-Vogelesang, 'Unimodal Social Preference Curves in Unidimensional Unfolding', Kwantitatieve Methoden, 42 (1993), 19-38, and R. van Blokland-Vogelesang and P. van Blokland, Unfold: Unidimensional Unfolding of Preference Data: Users' Manual. (Groningen: Iec ProGAMMA, 1989). Since the analyses with both packages yielded the same substantive results, there is no need to present them both here. Both are displayed in the appendix of a conference paper: W. van der Brug, C. van der Eijk and M. Marsh, Unfolding the Irish Presidential Election 1997 (paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston). MUDFOLD and UNFOLD are both distributed by ProGAMMA, P.O. Box 841, 9700 AV Groningen, the Netherlands. See also http://www.gamma.rug.nl.
35. Unfortunately the advantages of MUDFOLD do not come without cost: its algorithm cannot handle full rank orders, but only partial rankings (pick k out of n) or preference ratings. Consequently, in order to use this algorithm, we must either transform the data so that they can be interpreted as partial rankings, or treat them as if they were ratings. Transforming full rankings to partial rankings is relatively simple. Partial orderings are derived from the full rank ordering of candidates by giving a score of 1 to the k highest preferences, and 0 to all lower preferences (i.e.: pick two out of five yields for every respondent a string of five scores, one for each candidate, two of which are 1, the rest being 0). By using different values for k (the number of 'picked' items) and comparing the resulting unfolding analyses one can assess whether or not all distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are equally informative in terms of a common structure. Interpreting rankings as ratings involves an inversion of preference ranks: the first preference candidate is assigned the highest preference score, and so on. Variations of such ratings can be obtained by collapsing categories. Comparing unfolding results from these different recoded preferences helps to assess which distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are structured in a joint scale and which are not. Because of the need to transform our data to analyse them with MUDFOLD, we performed all analyses also with a different program for unidimensional unfolding, UNFOLD. As each of these algorithms has their own particular pros and cons, we used both and compared their results. UNFOLD can handle proper rank-order data, and thus requires no re-coding of the data. However, because UNFOLD is a deterministic program, there is no way to test its results against a null-hypothesis of random response, which is one of the strong points of MUDFOLD. The UNFOLD approach has been documented by R. van Blokland-Vogelesang, 'Unimodal Social Preference Curves in Unidimensional Unfolding', Kwantitatieve Methoden, 42 (1993), 19-38, and R. van Blokland-Vogelesang and P. van Blokland, Unfold: Unidimensional Unfolding of Preference Data: Users' Manual. (Groningen: Iec ProGAMMA, 1989). Since the analyses with both packages yielded the same substantive results, there is no need to present them both here. Both are displayed in the appendix of a conference paper: W. van der Brug, C. van der Eijk and M. Marsh, Unfolding the Irish Presidential Election 1997 (paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston). MUDFOLD and UNFOLD are both distributed by ProGAMMA, P.O. Box 841, 9700 AV Groningen, the Netherlands. See also http://www.gamma.rug.nl.
36. Unfortunately the advantages of MUDFOLD do not come without cost: its algorithm cannot handle full rank orders, but only partial rankings (pick k out of n) or preference ratings. Consequently, in order to use this algorithm, we must either transform the data so that they can be interpreted as partial rankings, or treat them as if they were ratings. Transforming full rankings to partial rankings is relatively simple. Partial orderings are derived from the full rank ordering of candidates by giving a score of 1 to the k highest preferences, and 0 to all lower preferences (i.e.: pick two out of five yields for every respondent a string of five scores, one for each candidate, two of which are 1, the rest being 0). By using different values for k (the number of 'picked' items) and comparing the resulting unfolding analyses one can assess whether or not all distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are equally informative in terms of a common structure. Interpreting rankings as ratings involves an inversion of preference ranks: the first preference candidate is assigned the highest preference score, and so on. Variations of such ratings can be obtained by collapsing categories. Comparing unfolding results from these different recoded preferences helps to assess which distinctions in the original complete preference ranking are structured in a joint scale and which are not. Because of the need to transform our data to analyse them with MUDFOLD, we performed all analyses also with a different program for unidimensional unfolding, UNFOLD. As each of these algorithms has their own particular pros and cons, we used both and compared their results. UNFOLD can handle proper rank-order data, and thus requires no re-coding of the data. However, because UNFOLD is a deterministic program, there is no way to test its results against a null-hypothesis of random response, which is one of the strong points of MUDFOLD. The UNFOLD approach has been documented by R. van Blokland-Vogelesang, 'Unimodal Social Preference Curves in Unidimensional Unfolding', Kwantitatieve Methoden, 42 (1993), 19-38, and R. van Blokland-Vogelesang and P. van Blokland, Unfold: Unidimensional Unfolding of Preference Data: Users' Manual. (Groningen: Iec ProGAMMA, 1989). Since the analyses with both packages yielded the same substantive results, there is no need to present them both here. Both are displayed in the appendix of a conference paper: W. van der Brug, C. van der Eijk and M. Marsh, Unfolding the Irish Presidential Election 1997 (paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston). MUDFOLD and UNFOLD are both distributed by ProGAMMA, P.O. Box 841, 9700 AV Groningen, the Netherlands. See also http://www.gamma.rug.nl.
37. According to Van Schuur an H-coefficient smaller than 0.30 indicates insufficient structure in the data to justify treating the individual items as indicators of a single latent dimension. H coefficients
38. Marsh, 'The Making of the Irish President 1997', p. 232-3.
39. These coefficients were computed on contingency tables that included only respondents who stated a first preference for any of the parties that formally supported one of the presidential candidates. If we included those without party, and modelled their expected vote as one for a non-party candidate, Cramer's V would be a little higher.
40. We used a procedure proposed by W. van der Brug, 'Determining Scale Values for Subjects in MUDFOLD', Kwantitatieve Methoden, 44 (1993), 9-20. In these and subsequent analyses we focus on the trichotomous codings of candidate preferences (distinguishing between the first, the second, and all subsequent preferences combined) since that transformation of the data yielded the strongest unfolding scales.
41. The questions were generally phrased as follows: 'Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way [leader] is doing his job as leader of [party]?' In the case of Bertie Ahern and FF the question was: 'Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Bertie Ahern is doing his job as Taoiseach?'
42. The best fitting MUDFOLD scales in both surveys were identical and yielded the following ordering of the national party leaders: Proinsias de Rossa (DL), Dick Spring (Labour), John Bruton (FG), Bertie Ahern (FF), and Mary Harney (PD). In both surveys the strength of this unfolding scale is the same: H = 0.39. Although not overwhelmingly strong, such a value is generally considered acceptable (see fn. 22). The unfolding scales of electoral preferences across these parties as asked in the European Election Studies of 1989 and 1994 were considerable stronger: well over 0.50. We must keep in mind, however, that the questions analysed here tap party preferences in a less direct way, as they refer to evaluations of current party leaders 'as leaders of their particular parties'. These items thus tap a combination of party preferences and evaluations of leaders' performance. In spite of this somewhat less satisfactory item content, we clearly find a structure that resembles that from earlier studies.
43. For a review of work on these themes, see I. McAllister, 'Leaders', in LeDuc, Niemi and Norris, Comparing Democracies, pp. 280-98.
44. A. Lupia and M. D. McCubbins, The Democratic Dilemma (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
45. See, e.g., S. Feldman and P. J. Conover, 'Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perceptions', Journal of Politics, 45 (1983), 812-39; P. J. Conover and S. Feldman, 'How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model', American Journal of Political Science, 28 (1984), 95-126. See in this context also theories of 'on-line information processing': M. Lodge, K. McGraw and P. Stroh, 'An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation', American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 399-419.
46. See, e.g., S. Feldman and P. J. Conover, 'Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perceptions', Journal of Politics, 45 (1983), 812-39; P. J. Conover and S. Feldman, 'How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model', American Journal of Political Science, 28 (1984), 95-126. See in this context also theories of 'on-line information processing': M. Lodge, K. McGraw and P. Stroh, 'An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation', American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 399-419.
47. See, e.g., S. Feldman and P. J. Conover, 'Candidates, Issues, and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perceptions', Journal of Politics, 45 (1983), 812-39; P. J. Conover and S. Feldman, 'How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model', American Journal of Political Science, 28 (1984), 95-126. See in this context also theories of 'on-line information processing': M. Lodge, K. McGraw and P. Stroh, 'An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation', American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 399-419.
48. A. Gelman and G. King, 'Why Are American Presidential-Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable', British Journal of Political Science, 23 (1993), 409-51.