Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences

Political Analysis

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 46-62

  Alvarez, R Michael ^a   Nagler, Jonathan ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21044456939     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mph003     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Aldrich, J. H., and R. D. McKelvey. 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections." American Political Science Review 71:111-130.
2. Alvarez, R. M. 1998. Information and Elections, Revised to Include the 1996 Presidential Election. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Alvarez, R. M., C. H. Franklin. 1994. "Uncertainty and Political Perceptions." Journal of Politics 56: 671-689.
4. Alvarez, R. M., and J. Nagler. 1995. "Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 39:714-744.
5. Alvarez, R. M., J. Nagler. 1998a. "Economics, Entitlements and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 42:1349-1363.
6. Alvarez, R. M., J. Nagler. 1998b. "When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections." American Journal of Political Science 42:55-96.
7. Alvarez, R. M., J. Nagler, J. Willette. 2000. "Measuring the Relative Impact of Issues and the Economy in Democratic Elections." Electoral Studies 19:237-253.
8. Anker, H., E. V. Oppenhuis. 1997. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study, 1994. [Computer file]. Amsterdam: Dutch Electoral Research Foundation and (SKON)/Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) [producers], 1995. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1997.
9. Barteis, L. M. 1986. "Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test." American Journal of Political Science 30:709-728.
10. Bartolini, S., P. Mair. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885-1985. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Brady, H. E., S. Ansolabehere. 1989. "The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics." American Political Science Review 83:1165-1179.
12. Budge, I., D. Robertson, and D. Hearl, eds. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Postwar Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, D. E. Stokes. 1964. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
14. Castles, F., and P. Mair. 1984. "Left-Right Political Scales: Some 'Expert' Judgements." European Journal of Political Research 12:73-88.
15. Davis, O. A., M. J. Hinich. 1966. "A Model of Policy Formation in Democratic Society." In Mathematical Applications in the Social Sciences, ed. J. L. Bernd. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, pp. 175-208.
16. Davis, O. A., and M. J. Hinich, P. Ordeshook. 1970. "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process." American Political Science Review 64:426-448.
17. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
18. Enelow, J., M. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Franklin, C. H. 1991. "Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perceptions of U.S. Senate Incumbents." American Political Science Review 85:1193-1214.
20. Gabel, Matthew J., and John Huber. 2000. "Putting Parties in Their Place: Inferring Party Left-Right Ideological Positions from Party Manifestos Data." American Journal of Political Science 44:94-103.
21. Heath, A., R. Jowell, and J. K. Curtice. 1995. British Election Study: Cross-Section 1987. [Computer file]. London: Social and Community Planning Research/Oxford: A. Heath et al., Oxford University [producers], 1989. Colchester, England: ESRC Data Archive/Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Science Research [distributor], 1995.
22. Holland, Paul W., and Howard Wainer, eds. 1993. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
23. Johnston, R., and A. Blais, H. Brady, E. Gidengil, N. Nevitte. 1995. Canadian Election Study, 1993: Incorporating the 1992 Referendum Suney on the Charlottetown Accord. [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Vancouver: Richard Johnston, University of British Columbia/Montreal: Andre Blais, University of Montreal/ Berkeley, CA: Henry Brady, University of California/Montreal: Elisabeth Gidengil, McGill University/ Calgary, Alberta: Neil Nevitte, University of Calgary [producers], 1995. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1995.
24. Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. New York: Vintage.
25. Kim, Hee-min, Richard C. Fording. 2002. "Extending Party Estimates to Governments and Electors." In Mapping Policy Preferences, eds. Ian Budge et al. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 157-178.
26. King, Gary, Christopher J. L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon, Ajay Tandon. 2003. "Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research." Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.
27. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1995. "Party Positions and Voter Orientations." In Citizens and the State, eds. HansDieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 183-205.
28. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Bernhard Wessels. 2002. "Sincere Voting in Different Electoral Systems." Unpublished manuscript, Wissenschaftzentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung.
29. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Benoit, John Garry. 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data." American Political Science Review 97:311-331.
30. Laver, M., and W. B. Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
31. Mair, P. 1996. "Party Systems and Structures of Competition." In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, eds. L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, and P. Norris. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 83-106.
32. Nie, N. H., S. Verba, and J. R. Petrocik. 1979. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Page, B. I. 1976. "The Theory of Political Ambiguity." American Political Science Review 70:742-52.
34. Page, B. I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Page, B. I., and R. A. Brody. 1972. "Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue." American Political Science Review 66:979-995.
36. Palfrey, T. R., K. T. Poole. 1987. "The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior." American Journal of Political Science 31:511-530.
37. Poole, K. 1998. "Recovering a Basic Space From a Set of Issue Scales." American Journal of Political Science 42:954-993.
38. Rosenstone, S. J., D. R. Kinder, W. E. Miller, and the National Election Studies. 2000. American National Election Study. 1996: Pre- and Post-Election Survey. [Computer file]. 4th version. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 1999. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000.
39. Sani, G., G. Sartori. 1983. "Polarization, Fragmentation and Competition in Western Democracies." In Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, eds. H. Daalder and P. Mair. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 307-340.
40. Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Shepsle, K. A. 1972. "The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition." American Political Science Review 66:555-568.
42. Van Der Eijk, C. 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales." Quality and Quantity 35:325-341.
43. Ware, A. 1996. Political Parties and Parry Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.