Systemic polarisation and spatial voting

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 759-786

  Pardos Prado, Sergi ^a   Dinas, Elias ^a  

^a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956572979     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01918.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adams J, Merrill S. Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Political Science 1999, 43(3):765-791.
2. Alvarez RM, Nagler J. When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science 1998, 42(1):55-96.
3. Blais A. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research 2001, 40(1):81-91.
4. Cho S, Endersby JW. Issues, the spatial theory of voting and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice 2003, 114:275-293.
5. Clarke HD. Political choice in Britain 2004, Oxford, Oxford University Press
6. Cox GW. Electoral equilibrium under alternative voting institutions. American Journal of Political Science 1987, 31(1):82-108.
7. Cox GW. Multicandidate spatial competition. Advances in the spatial theory of voting 1990a, Enelow JMHinich MJ. eds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
8. Cox GW. Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 1990b, 34(4):903-935.
9. Dalton RJ. The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies 2008, 41(7):899-920.
10. Downs A. An economic theory of democracy 1957, New York, Harper & Row
11. Ezrow L. Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A polled analysis of Western European elections, 1984-1998. European Journal of Political Research 2005, 44:881-898.
12. Ezrow L. The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics 2007, 69(1):182-192.
13. Ezrow L. On the inverse relationship between votes and proximity for niche parties. European Journal of Political Research 2008a, 47:206-220.
14. Ezrow L. Parties' policy programmes and the dog that didn't bark: No evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. British Journal of Political Science 2008b, 38:479-497.
15. Hazan R. Center parties and systematic polarization: An exploration of recent trends in Western Europe. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1995, 7(4):421-445.
16. Huber J. Values and partisanship in left-right orientation: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research 1989, 5(17):599-621.
17. Iversen T. Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 1994, 38(1):45-74.
18. Kedar O. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 2005a, 99(2):185-199.
19. Kedar O. How diffusion of power in parliaments affects voter choice. Political Analysis 2005b, 13:410-429.
20. Kedar O. How voters work around institutions: Policy balancing in staggered elections. Electoral Studies 2006, 25(3):509-527.
21. Lewis JB, King G. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 1999, 8(1):21-33.
22. Lijphart A. The structure of inference. The civic culture revisited 1980, Almond GAVerba S. eds, Boston, MA, Little, Brown
23. Macdonald SE. Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 1991, 85(4):1107-1131.
24. Macdonald SE. Political sophistication and models of issue voting. British Journal of Political Science 1995, 25:453-483.
25. Macdonald SE. On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics 1998, 60(3):653-690.
26. Merrill S, Grofman B. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity models 1999, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
27. Powell GB. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions 2000, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press
28. Rabinowitz G, Macdonald SE. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 1989, 83(1):93-121.
29. Robinson WS. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 1950, 15:351-357.
30. Sani G, Sartori G. Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies. Western European party systems: Continuity and change 1983, Daalder H, Mair P. eds, London, Sage
31. Sartori G. El criterio numérico. Partidos y Sistemas de Partidos 1999a, Madrid, Alianza
32. Sartori G. Sistemas Competitivos. Partidos y Sistemas de Partidos 1999b, Madrid, Alianza
33. Sartori G. Competencia Espacial. Partidos y Sistemas de Partidos 1999c, Madrid, Alianza
34. Seligson M. The renaissance of political culture, or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy? Comparative Politics 2002, 34:273-292.
35. Shepsle KA, Cohen RN. Multiparty competition, entry and entry deterrence in spatial models of elections. Advances in the spatial theory of voting 1990, Enelow JM, Hinich MJ. eds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
36. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling 1999, London, Sage
37. Steenbergen MR, Jones BS. Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science 2002, 46(1):218-237.
38. Taylor M, Herman VM. Party systems and government stability. American Political Science Review 1971, 65(1):28-37.
39. Tillie J. Party utility and voting behaviour 1995, Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis
40. Van Der Brug W, Fennema M. Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research 2003, 42(1):55-76.
41. Van der Brug W. Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote? European Journal of Political Research 2000, 37(1):77-102.
42. Van der Brug W. The economy and the vote: Effects of economic conditions on voter preferences and election outcomes in fifteen countries 2007, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
43. Van der Eijk C. Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity 2001, 35:325-341.
44. Van der Eijk C. Choosing Europe? The European electorate and national politics in the face of union 1996, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press
45. Van der Eijk C. Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies 2006, 25(3):424-447.
46. Warwick PV. Ideological diversity and government survival in Western European parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies 1992, 25(3):332-361.
47. Westholm A. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 1997, 91(4):865-883.
48. Westholm A. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 2001, 63(2):436-481.