Evidence on the importance of spatial voting models in presidential nominations and elections

Public Choice

Volumn 123, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 439-462

  Kenny, Lawrence W ^a   Lotfinia, Babak ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044474022     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11127-005-7170-5     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Abramowitz, A. (1988). Explaining senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82, 385-403.
2. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (1999). Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multi-party elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Political Science, 43, 765-791.
3. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2000). Spatial models of candidate competition and the 1988 French presidential election: Are presidential candidates vote-maximizers? Journal of Politics, 62, 729-756.
4. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2003a). Voter turnout and candidate strategies in American elections. Journal of Politics, 65, 161-189.
5. Adams, J., & Merrill, S. (2003b). Candidates' policy preferences and electoral outcomes: The three faces of policy representation. Unpublished manuscript.
6. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues, and the perot candidacy: Voter choices in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 714-744.
7. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). Economics, entitlements, and social issues: Voter choices in the 1996 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1349-1363.
8. Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Bowler, S. (2000). Issues, economics, and the dynamics of multiparty elections: The 1997 British general election. American Political Science Review, 94, 131-150.
9. Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Willette, J. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies, 19, 237-253.
10. Aranson, P. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1972). Spatial strategies for sequential elections. In R.G. Niemi, & H.F. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making (pp. 298-331). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
11. Bartels, L. M., & Zaller, J. (2001). Presidential vote models: A recount. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 9-20.
12. Bullock, C. S., & Brady, D. W. (1983). Party, constituency, and roll-call voting in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 29-43.
13. Campbell, J. E. (2001). The referendum that didn't happen: The forecasts of the 2000 presidential election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 33-38.
14. Coleman, J. S. (1971). Internal processes governing party positions in elections. Public Choice, 17, 35-60.
15. Coleman, J. S. (1972). The positions of political parties in elections. In R.G. Niemi, & H.F. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making (pp. 332-357). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
16. Congressional Quarterly (1997). Presidential Elections, 1789-1996. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
17. Cooper, A., & Munger, M. C. (2000). The (un)predictability of primaries with many candidates: Simulation evidence. Public Choice, 103, 337-355.
18. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Erikson, R., & Romero, D. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review, 84, 1103-1126.
20. Fenno, R. F. (1977). Home style. Boston: Little, Brown.
21. Figlio, D. (2000). Political shirking, opponent quality, and electoral support. Public Choice, 103, 271-284.
22. Fiorina, M. (1974). Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
23. Francis, W. L., & Kenny, L. W. (1996). Position shifting in pursuit of higher office. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 768-786.
24. Francis, W. L., & Kenny, L. W. (2000). Up the political ladder: Career paths in U.S. politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Francis, W. L., Kenny, L. W., Morton, R. B., & Schmidt, A. B. (1994). Retrospective voting and political mobility. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 999-1024.
26. Glazer, A., & Robbins, M. (1985). How elections matter: A study of U.S. senators. Public Choice, 46, 163-172.
27. Goff, B. L., & Grier, K. B. (1993). On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking. Public Choice, 76, 5-20.
28. Grofman, B., Griffin, R., & Glazer, A. (1990). Identical geography, different party: A natural experiment on the magnitude of party differences in the U.S. senate 1960-84. In R. J. Johnston, F. M. Shelley, & P. J. Taylor (Eds.), Developments in electoral geography (pp. 207-217). London: Routledge.
29. Groseclose, T., Levitt, S. D., & Snyder, J. M. (1999). Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review, 93, 33-50.
30. Hibbs, D. A. (2000). Bread and peace voting in U.S. presidential elections. Public Choice, 104, 149-180.
31. Holbrook, T. M. (2001). Forecasting with mixed economic signals: A cautionary tale. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 39-44.
32. Huntington, S. (1950). A revised theory of American party politics. American Political Science Review, 44, 669-677.
33. Jenkins, J. A., & Sala, B. R. (1998). The spatial theory of voting and the presidential election of 1824. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1157-1179.
34. Johannes, J. R., & McAdams, J. C. (1981). A congressional incumbency effect: Is it case-work, policy compatibility, or something else? American Journal of Political Science, 25, 512-542.
35. Jung, G., Kenny, L. W., & Lott, J. R. (1994). An explanation for why senators from the same state vote differently so frequently. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 65-96.
36. Keech, W. (1995). Economic politics: The costs of democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Tien, C. (2001). Modeling the future: Lessons from the Gore forecast. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 21-23.
38. Norpath, H. (2001). Primary colors: A mixed blessing for Al Gore. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34, 45-48.
39. Owen, G., & Grofman, B. (2000). Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: Persistent divergence of party positions. Unpublished manuscript.
40. Peltzman, S. (1984). Constituent interest and congressional voting. Journal of Law and Economics, 27, 181-210.
41. Peltzman, S. (1990). How efficient is the voting market. Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 27-63.
42. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). U.S. presidential elections 1968-80: A spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 282-312.
43. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1991). Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 228-278.
44. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45. Schmidt, A. B., Kenny, L. W., & Morton, R. B. (1996). Evidence on electoral accountability in the U.S. Senate: Are unfaithful agents really punished? Economic Inquiry, 34, 545-567.
46. Shapiro, C. R., Brady, D. W., Brody, R. A., & Ferejohn, J. R. (1990). Linking constituency opinion and senate voting scores: A hybrid explanation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 599-622.
47. Stata (2001). Stata Reference Manual, Release 7, Volume 2 H-P. College Station, Texas: Stata Press.
48. Westlye, M. C. (1991). Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
49. Whitby, K. J., & Bledsoe, T. (1986). The impact of policy voting on the electoral fortunes of senate incumbents. Western Political Quarterly, 39, 690-700.
50. Wright, G. (1989). Policy voting in the U.S. Senate: Who is represented? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 465-486.
51. Wright, M. B. (1993). Shirking and political support in the U.S. Senate, 1964-84. Public Choice, 76, 103-123.
52. Zaller, J. R. (1998). Monica Lewinsky's contribution to political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 31, 182-189.
53. Zupan, M. A. (1992). Measuring the ideological preferences of U.S. presidents: A proposed (extremely simple) method. Public Choice, 73, 351-361.