Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models

Public Choice

Volumn 114, Issue 3-4, 2003, Pages 275-293

  Cho, Sungdai ^a   Endersby, James W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037282233     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022616323373     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Adams, J. (1999). An assessment of voting systems under the proximity and directional models of the vote. Public Choice 98: 131-151.
2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Davis, O.A., Hinich, M.J. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64: 426-448.
4. Dow, J.K. (1998). Directional and proximity models of voter choice in recent U.S. Presidential elections. Public Choice 96: 259-270.
5. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
6. Endersby, J.W. and Galatas, S.E. (1998). British parties and spatial competition: Dimensions of party evaluation in the 1992 election. Public Choice 97: 363-382.
7. Enelow, J.M., Endersby, J.W. and Munger, M.C. (1993). A revised probabilistic spatial model of elections: Theory and evidence. In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation and choice: An economic theory of democracy in perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8. Enelow, J.M. and Hinich, M.J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Gilljam, M. (1997). The directional theory of voting under the magnifying glass. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 5-12.
10. Grofman, B. (1985). The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics 47: 230-237.
11. Heath, A., Jowell, R. and Curtice, J.K. (1987). British general election survey 1987 [computer file], ICPSR version. London: Social and Community Research [producer], 1992. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1996.
12. Heath, A., Jowell, R., Curtice, J.K., Brand, J.A. and Mitchell, J.C. (1993). British general election survey 1992 [computer file], ICPSR version. London: Social and Community Planning Research [producer], 1992. Colchester: ESRC Data Archive/Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1996.
13. Heath, A., Jowell, R., Curtice, J.K. and Norris, P. (1998). British general election survey 1997 [computer file], ICPSR version. London: Social and Community Planning Research [producer], 1998. Colchester: ESRC Data Archive/Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1996.
14. Hinich, M.J. and Munger, M.C. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Iverson, T. (1994). Political leadership and representation in Western European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Political Science Review 38: 45-74.
16. Lewis, J.B. and King, G. (2000). No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8: 21-33.
17. Macdonald, S.E., Listhaug, O. and Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 85: 1107-1131.
18. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. and Listhaug, O. (1998). On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics 60: 635-690.
19. Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. and Listhaug, O. (2001). Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. Journal of Politics 63: 482-500.
20. Merrill, S., III. (1995). Discriminating between directional and proximity spatial models of electoral competition. Electoral Studies 14: 273-287.
21. Merrill, S., III, and 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.
22. Merrill, S., III, and Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Pierce, R. (1997). Directional versus proximity models: Verisimilitude as the criterion. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 31-74.
24. Rabinowitz, G., and Macdonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93-121.
25. Westholm, A. (1997). Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 91: 865-883.
26. Westholm, A. (2001). On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 63: 436-481.