Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-569ts Total loading time: 0.452 Render date: 2022-10-02T17:40:59.894Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

A Directional Theory of Issue Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

George Rabinowitz
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Stuart Elaine Macdonald
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Abstract

From Stokes's (1963) early critique on, it has been clear to empirical researchers that the traditional spatial theory of elections is seriously flawed. Yet fully a quarter century later, that theory remains the dominant paradigm for understanding mass-elite linkage in politics. We present an alternative spatial theory of elections that we argue has greater empirical verisimilitude.

Based on the ideas of symbolic politics, the directional theory assumes that most people have a diffuse preference for a certain direction of policy-making and that people vary in the intensity with which they hold those preferences. We test the two competing theories at the individual level with National Election Study data and find the directional theory more strongly supported than the traditional spatial theory. We then develop the implications of the directional theory for candidate behavior and assess the predictions in light of evidence from the U.S. Congress.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1986. Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22:475510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herbert B. 1984. Presidential Elections and American Politics. 3d ed. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Election. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Robert A., Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and Berkman, Michael. 1988. “Do U.S. Senators Moderate Strategically?American Political Science Review 82:237–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1972. “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66:450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald. 1969. Political Change in Britain. London: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chappell, Henry W., and Keech, William R.. 1986. “Policy Motivation and Party Differences in a Dynamic Spatial Model of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 80:881–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, Clyde H. 1950. “Psychological Scaling Without a Unit of Measurement.” Psychology Review 55:145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, Clyde H. 1964. A Theory of Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1966. “A Model of Policy Formation in Democratic Society.” In Mathematical Applications in the Social Sciences, II, ed. Bernd, Joseph L.. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1970. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 64: 426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1982. “Ideology, Issues, and the Spatial Theory of Elections.” American Political Science Review 76: 493501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Gant, Michael M. 1983. “Citizens' Evaluations of 1980 Presidential Candidates: Influence of Campaign Strategies.” American Politics Quarterly 11:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick. 1985. “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata.” American Journal of Political Science 29:850–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Pollard, Walter. 1981. “A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39:4157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 19:161–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Tursky, Bernard. 1981. “On the Magnitude Scaling of Public Opinion in Survey Research.” American Journal of Political Science 25:376419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Prothro, James W., Rabinowitz, George, and Brown, Keith J.. 1988. “Political Evocation and Styles of Candidate Evaluation.” Political Behavior 10:117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes during an Election Year.” American Political Science Review 76:538–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauser, Gary A. 1983. Political Marketing. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S., and Brown, Thad A.. 1976. “A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization and the 1972 Election.” American Political Science Review 70:753–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Bartels, Larry M.. 1985. “New Measures of Issue Salience: An Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 47:1212–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A.. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 66:979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C.. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73:1071–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77:175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984a. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics 46:1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984b. “U.S. Presidential Elections 1968–80: A Spatial Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 28:282312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 1982. “Issue Representation in Congress.” Journal of Politics 44:658–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George. 1978. “On the Nature of Political Issues: Insights from a Spatial Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 793817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Gurian, Paul-Henri, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1984. “The Structure of Presi dential Elections and the Process of Realignment.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 611–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Prothro, James W., and Jacoby, William. 1982. “Salience As a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 44:4163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., Hensler, Carl P., and Speer, Leslie K.. 1979. “Whites' Opposition to ‘Busing’: Self-interest or Symbolic Politics.” American Political Science Review 73:369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57:368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, George B. Jr., 1960. Calculus and Analytic Geometry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77:142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1986. “Candidates and Policy in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Political Science Review 80:567–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
624
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Directional Theory of Issue Voting
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A Directional Theory of Issue Voting
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A Directional Theory of Issue Voting
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *