The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 81-91

  Blais, André ^a   Nadeau, Richard ^a   Gidengil, Elisabeth ^b   Nevitte, Neil ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035539537     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011883020542     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson, C. (2000). Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective, Electoral Studies 19: 151-170.
2. Blais, A. & Nadeau, R. (1996). Measuring strategic voting: A two-step procedure, Electoral Studies 15: 39-52.
3. Cox, G.W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Gilljam, M. (1997). The directional theory under the magnifying glass: A reappraisal, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 5-12.
5. Granberg, D. & Gilljam, M. (1997). Implausible hypotheses in the directional theory of issue voting, European Journal of Political Research 32: 31-50.
6. Iversen, T. (1994). Political leadership and representation in west European democracies: A test of three models of voting, American Journal of Political Science 38: 45-74.
7. Kramer, J. & Rattinger, H. (1997). The proximity and the directional theories of issue voting, European Journal of Political Research 32: 1-29.
8. Krosnick, J.A. & Berent, M.K. (1993). Comparison of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format, American Journal of Political Science 37: 941-964.
9. Lewis, J.B. & King, G. (2000). No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting, Political Analysis 8: 21-33.
10. Lewis-Beck, M. (1988). Economics and elections: The major western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
11. Listhaug, O., Macdonald, S.E. & Rabinowitz, G. (1990). A comparative spatial analysis of European party systems, Scandinavian Political Studies 13: 227-254.
12. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M.R. & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation, American Political Science Review 89: 309-326.
13. Macdonald, S.E., Listhaug, O. & Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems, American Political Science Review 85: 1107-1131.
14. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. & Listhaug, O. (1995). Political sophistication and models of issue voting, British Journal of Political Science 25: 453-483.
15. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. & Listhaug, O. (1998). On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics 60: 653-690.
16. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. & Listhaug, O. (1997). Individual perception and models of issue voting, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 13-21.
17. Merrill, S. III. (1995). Discriminating between the directional and proximity models of electoral competition, Electoral Studies 14: 273-287.
18. Merrill, S. III & Grofman, B. (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.
19. Merrill, S. III & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Nevitte, N., Blais, A., Gidengil, E. & Nadeau, R. (2000). Unsteady state: The 1997 Canadian election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
21. Northrup, D. (1998). The 1997 Canadian election survey: Technical documentation. Toronto: Institute for Social Research, York University.
22. Ordeshook, P.C. (1986). Game theory and political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Pierce, R. (1997). Directional versus proximity models: Verisimilitude as the criterion, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 61-74.
24. Rabinowitz, G. & Macdonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting, American Political Science Review 83: 93-121.
25. Rabinowitz, G., Macdonald, S.E. & Listhaug, O. (1991). New players in an old game: Party strategy in multiparty systems, Comparative Political Studies 24: 147-185.
26. Rahn, W., Aldrich, J.H., Borgida, E. & Sullivan, J.L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J.A. Ferejohn & J.H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
27. Westholm, A. (1997). Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice, American Political Science Review 91: 865-884.