Direction versus proximity: Amassing experimental evidence

American Politics Research

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 227-253

  Claassen, Ryan L ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Directional model; Experimental design; Polarization; Political ideology; Proximity model; Spatial model; Voting

Indexed keywords

EID: 59849083242     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X08321756     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adams, J., Bishin, B.G., & Dow, J.K. (2004). Representation in congressional campaigns: Evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 66, 348-373.
2. Adams, J., & Merrill, S., III. (1999 a). Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Political Science, 43, 765-791.
3. Adams, J., & Merrill, S., III. (1999 b). Party policy equilibrium for alternative spatial voting models: An application to the Norwegian Storting. European Journal of Political Research, 36, 235-255.
4. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23-34.
5. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Claassen, R.L. (2007). Ideology and evaluation in an experimental setting: Comparing the proximity and the directional models. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 263-274.
7. Davis, O., Hinich, M., & Ordeshook, P. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64, 426-448.
8. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
9. Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1982). Ideology, issues and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 76, 493-501.
10. Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Enelow, J., Hinich, M., & Mendell, N. (1986). An empirical evaluation of alternative spatial models of elections. Journal of Politics, 48, 675-693.
12. Hinich, M., & Munger, M. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Hinich, M., & Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 323-341.
14. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 25, 323-341.
15. Lacy, D., & Paolino, P. (2004). An experimental test of proximity and directional voting. Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society. Palo Alto, CA.
16. Lewis, J., & King, G. (1999). No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis, 8, 21-33.
17. Long, J.S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using STATA (2 nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
18. MacDonald, S.E., Listhaug, O., & Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review, 85, 1107-1131.
19. MacDonald, S.E., and Rabinowitz, G. (1998). Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics. Electoral Studies, 17, 281-300.
20. MacDonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (1995). Political sophistication and models of issue voting. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 453-483.
21. MacDonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (1998). On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics, 60, 653-690.
22. Markus, G.B., & Converse, P.E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73, 1055-1070.
23. McCarty, N., Poole, K.T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Merrill, S., III, & Grofman, B. (1997). Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9, 25-48.
25. Merrill, S., III, & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Poole, K.T. (2000). Review of the book A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. American Political Science Review, 94, 953.
27. Rabinowitz, G., & MacDonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93-121.
28. Riker, W.H., and Ordeshook, P.C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62, 25-42.
29. Riker, W.H., & Ordeshook, P.C. (1973). An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30. Tomz, M., Van Houweling, R.P., & Sniderman, P.M. (2006). New evidence on directional versus proximity voting. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.
31. Westholm, A. (1997). Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 91, 865-883.
32. Westholm, A. (2001). On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics, 63, 436-481.