Representation in congressional campaigns: Evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. senate elections

Journal of Politics

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 348-373

  Adams, James ^a   Bishin, Benjamin G ^b   Dow, Jay K ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442471614     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00155.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Achen, Christopher H. 1978. "Measuring Representation." American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475-510.
2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James Snyder. 2000. "Valence Polities and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models." Public Choice 103(3-4): 327-36.
3. Ansolabehere, Stephen, James Snyder, and Charles Stewart. 2001. "Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections." American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136-59.
4. Arnold, R. Douglas. 1993. "Can Inattentive Citizens Control their Elected Representatives?" In Congress Reconsidered. 5th Edition. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I, eds. Washington: CQ Press.
5. Bailey, Michael, and David Brady. 1998. "Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade." American Journal of Political Science 42(3): 524-44.
6. Berger, Mark, Michael Munger, and Richard Potthoff. 2000. "The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence." Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(1): 78-90.
7. Bishin, Benjamin. 2000. "Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?" Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3): 389-415.
8. Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Burden, Barry. 2001. "Choices and Echoes in U.S. House Elections." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio, TX, March 9-11.
10. Burden, Barry, Gregory Caldeira, and Timothy Groseclose. 2000. "Measuring the Ideologies of U.S. Senators: The Song Remains the Same." Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (May): 237-58.
11. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
12. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Erikson, Robert, and David Romero. 1990. "Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote." American Political Science Review 84(4): 1103-26.
14. Erikson, Robert, and Gerald Wright. 1993. "Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections." In Congress Reconsidered. 5th Edition. Lawrence Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer, eds. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
15. Erikson, Robert, and Gerald Wright. 1997. "Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections." In Congress Reconsidered. 6th Edition. Lawrence Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer, eds. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
16. Ezrow, Lawrence. 2002. "Exploring Convergence." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 25-27.
17. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
18. Gershtenson, Joseph. 2001a. "Measuring the Ideological Locations of Candidates and Constituents." Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, CA.
19. Gershtenson, Joseph. 2001b. "Proximity Voting and Election Outcomes in the U.S. Senate." Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, CA.
20. Grofman, Bernard. 1985. "The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting." Journal of Politics 47(2): 230-37.
21. Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. "A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage." American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 862-86.
22. Herrera, Cheryl Lyn, Richard Herrera, and Eric R. A. N. Smith. 1988. "Public Opinion and Congressional Representation." Public Opinion Quarterly 56(2): 185-205.
23. Hinich, Melvin J., and Michael C. Munger. 1997. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24. Ickovic, Allison. 2002. "Directional vs. Proximity Voting in the 1988 French Presidential Election." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 25-27.
25. Iversen, Torben. 1994. "Political Leadership and Representation in Western European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting." American Journal of Political Science 38(1): 45-74.
26. Jacobson, Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Fifth Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
27. Kedar, Orit. 2002. "Balancing the Seesaw: Rationality and Menu Dependence in Voter Behavior." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL., April 25-28.
28. Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 1998. "Downsian Voting and the Separation of Powers." American Journal of Political Science 42(4): 1180-99.
29. Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 1999. "Downsian Voting and the Separation of Powers in the 1998 Ohio and Texas Gubernatorial Elections." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL., April.
30. Lewis, Jeffrey. 2002. "Degrees of Measurement Error in Non-Linear Models: The Case of Directional Versus Proximity Voting." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 25-27.
31. Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King. 2000. "No Evidence on Directional Versus Proximity Voting." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Political Analysis 8(1): 21-34.
32. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug. 1998. "On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped." Journal of Politics 60(3): 653-90.
33. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug. 2001. "Sophistry versus Science: On Further Efforts to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model." Journal of Politics 63(2): 482-500.
34. Markus, Gregory, and Phillip Converse. 1979. "A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice." The American Political Science Review 73(1): 32-49.
35. Merrill, Samuel, III, and Bernard Grofman. 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.
36. Merrill, Samuel, III, and Bernard Grofman. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Page, Benjamin I., and Calvin C. Jones. 1979. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote." The American Political Science Review 73(4): 1071-89.
38. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Macdonald. 1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting." American Political Science Review 89(1): 93-121.
39. Uslaner, Eric M. 1999. The Movers and the Shirkers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40. Westholm, Anders. 1997. "Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of Proximity Theory." American Political Science Review 91(4): 865-83.
41. Westholm, Anders. 2001. "On the Return of Epicycles: Some Crossroads in Spatial Modeling Revisited." Journal of Politics 63(2): 436-81.
42. Westholm, Anders. 2002. "Distance, Direction, and the Problem of Causal Order: A Dynamic Solution to a Static Controversy." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 25-27.
43. Wright, Gerald R. 1989. "Policy Voting in the U.S. Senate: Who is Represented?" Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(3): 465-86.