Ideology and evaluation in an experimental setting: Comparing the proximity and the directional models

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 263-273

  Claassen, Ryan L ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Candidate evaluation; Directional model; Experimental research; Extremism; Ideology; Proximity model; Spatial model

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547828733     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912907302050     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adams, James, Benjamin G. Bishin, and Jay K. Dow. 2004. Representation in congressional campaigns: Evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. Senate elections. Journal of Politics 66:348-73.
2. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1999a. Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Political Science 43:765-91.
3. _. 1999b. Party policy equilibrium for alternative spatial voting models: An application to the Norwegian Storting. European Journal of Political Research 36:235-55.
4. Black, Duncan. 1958. The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Biais, Andre, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2001. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research 40:81-91.
6. Brettschneider, F., and D. Rolle. 1998. Parties as representatives of the people's interests: Models explaining the feeling of being represented. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50:711.
7. Cho, Sungdai, and James W. Endersby. 2003. Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice 114:275-93.
8. Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich, and Peter Ordeshook. 1970. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64:426-48.
9. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
10. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1982. Ideology, issues and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review 76:493-501.
11. _. 1984. The spatial theory of elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Enelow, James, Melvin Hinich, and Nancy Mendell. 1986. An empirical evaluation of alternative spatial models of elections. Journal of Politics 48:675-93.
13. Hinich, Melvin, and Michael Munger. 1994. Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press.
14. Hinich, Melvin, and Walker Pollard. 1981. A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science 25:323-41.
15. Hotelling, Harold. 1929. Stability in competition. Economic Journal 25:323-41.
16. Johnston, Richard, Patick Fournier, and Richard Jenkins. 2000. Party location and party support: Unpacking competing models. Journal of Politics 62:1145-60.
17. Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King. 1999. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8:21-33.
18. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Ola Listhaug, and George Rabinowitz. 1991. Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 85:1107-31.
19. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and George Rabinowitz. 1993. Ideology and candidate evaluation. Public Choice 76:59-78.
20. _. 1998. Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics. Electoral Studies 17 (3): 281-300.
21. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug. 1995. Political sophistication and models of issue voting. British Journal of Political Science 25 (4): 453-83.
22. _. 1998. On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics 60 (3): 653-90.
23. _. 2004. Bush vs. Gore-Policy issues in the 2000 US presidential election. Tidsskrift For Samfunnsforskings 45:185-213.
24. Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse. 1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73:1055-70.
25. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Merrill, Samuel, III, and Bernard Grofman. 1997. Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9:25-48.
27. _. 1999. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83:93-121.
29. Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62:25-42.
30. _. 1973. An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Todosijevic, Bojan. 2005. Issues and party preferences in Hungary: A comparison of directional and proximity models. Party Politics 11:109-26.
32. van der Brug, Wouter. 2001. Perceptions, opinions, and party preferences in the face of a real world event-Chernobyl as a natural experiment in political psychology. Journal of Theoretical Politics 13:53-80.
33. _. 2004. Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies 23:209-33.
34. Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 91 (4): 865-83.
35. _. 2001. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 63:436-81.