Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments

Electoral Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 460-471

  Lacy, Dean ^a   Paolino, Philip ^b  

^a DARTMOUTH COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Directional; Experiment; Issue voting; Proximity

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ELECTORAL SYSTEM; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; IDEOLOGY; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

EID: 77954658309     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adams J., Bishin B.G., Dow J.K. Representation in congressional campaigns: evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. Senate elections. The Journal of Politics May 2004, 66(2):348-373.
2. Alesina A., Rosenthal H. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Blais A., Nadeau R., Gidengil E., Nevitte N. The formation of party preferences: test the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research August 2001, 40:81-91.
4. Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, 42:116-131.
5. Claassen R. Ideology and evaulation in an experimental setting: comparing the proximity and directional models. Political Research Quarterly 2007, 60(2):263-273.
6. Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy 1957, Harper and Row, New York.
7. Druckman J.N. Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review 2004, 98(4):671-686.
8. Enelow J.M., Hinich M.J. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction 1984, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Fiorina M.P. Divided Government 1992, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York.
10. Geer J.G., Carter A., McHenry J., Teten R., Hoef J. Experimenting with the balancing hypothesis. Political Psychology February 2004, 25(1):49-63.
11. Globetti, S., 2002. Ideological Campaign Rhetoric and its Effects. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
12. Grofman B. The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics February 1985, 47(1):230-237.
13. Iversen T. Political leadership and representation in Western European democracies: a test of the three voting models. American Journal of Political Science February 1994, 39(1):46-74.
14. Kedar O. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review May 2005, 99(2):185-199.
15. Krosnick J.A., Boninger D.S., Chuang Y.C., Berent M.K., Carnot C.G. Attitude strength: one construct or many related constructs?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 65(6):1132-1151.
16. Lacy D., Paolino P. Downsian voting and the separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science October 1998, 42(4):1180-1199.
17. Lewis J., King G. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis Winter 2000, 8(1):21-34.
18. Macdonald S.E., Listhaug O., Rabinowitz G. Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review December 1991, 85(4):1107-1131.
19. Macdonald S.E., Rabinowitz G., Listhaug O. On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics August 1998, 60(3):653-690.
20. Macdonald S.E., Rabinowitz G., Listhaug O. Sophistry versus science: on further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. Journal of Politics May 2001, 63(2):482-500.
21. Mebane W.R.J. Coordination, moderation, and institutional balancing in American Presidential and House elections. American Political Science Review March 2000, 94(1):37-58.
22. Merrill S. Discriminating between the direction and proximity spatial model of electoral competition. Electoral Studies 1995, 14:273-287.
23. Merrill S.I., Grofman B. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Spatial Models 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Morton R.B. Methods and Models: a Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science 1999, Cambridge University Press, New York.
25. Morton R.B., Williams K.C. Learning by Voting: Sequential Choices in Presidential Primaries and Other Elections 2001, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
26. Page B.I. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy 1978, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
27. Page B.I., Jones C.C. Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review December 1972, 73(4):1071-1090.
28. Rabinowitz G., Macdonald S.E. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review March 1989, 83(1):93-121.
29. Rosenberg S.W., Bohan L., McCafferty P., Harris K. The image and the vote: the effect of candidate presentation on voter preference. American Journal of Political Science February 1986, 30(1):108-127.
30. Tomz M., van Houweling R.P. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review 2009, 102(3):303-318.
31. 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.
32. Westholm A. Distance versus direction: the illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review December 1997, 91(4):865-884.
33. Westholm A. On the return of epicycles: some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. The Journal of Politics May 2001, 63(2):436-481.