Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2017

Abstract

The application of spatial voting theories to popular elections presupposes an electorate that chooses political representatives on the basis of their well-structured policy preferences. Behavioral researchers have long contended that parts of the electorate instead hold unstructured and inconsistent policy beliefs. This article proposes an extension to spatial voting theories to analyze the effect of varying consistency in policy preferences on electoral behavior. The model results in the expectation that voters with less consistent policy preferences will put less weight on policy distance when learning about candidates who should represent their political positions. The study tests this expectation for the 2008 US presidential election, and finds that for respondents with less consistent self-placements on the liberal–conservative scale, policy distance less strongly affects their voting decision. The results have implications for the quality of political representation, as certain parts of the electorate are expected to be less closely represented.


Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

University of Zurich (email: lukas.stoetzer@uzh.ch). I thank Thomas Gschwend, Adam Berinsky, Devin Caughey, Daniel Stegmueller, Eric Dickson, Laron Williams, Steffen Zittlau, Tilko Swalve, Anita Gohdes, participants of different workshops at the University of Mannheim and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the article. Support for this research was provided by the Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, financing a post-doc scholarship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during which most of the work was conducted. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: doi:10.7910/DVN/J0G6K3 Stoetzer (2017) and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000102


References

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response. The American Political Science Review 69 (4):12191231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models. Economics Letters 80 (1):123129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M.. 2008. The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 102 (2):215232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Cohen, Michael. 1984. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test. American Journal of Political Science 30 (4):709728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M.. 2003. Democracy with Attitudes. In Electoral Democracy, edited by Michael B. MacKuen and George Rabinowitz, 4882. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Barton, Allen H., and Parsons, R. Wayne. 1977. Measuring Belief System Structure. Public Opinion Quarterly 41 (2):159180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey. 2007. An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the US Electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2):139154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H., and Esarey, Justin. 2010. Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential? American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):248266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice. The Journal of Politics 47 (2):530555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. The Two Faces of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 74 (1):7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Public. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by D. E. Apter, 206261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, Richard M., and DeGroot, Morris H.. 1987. Bayesian Analysis and Uncertainty in Economic Theory. Rowman & Littlefield.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1981. A New Approach to Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model. American Journal of Political Science 25 (3):483493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values. American Journal of Political Science 32 (2):416440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Jackson, John E.. 1993. Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 87 (3):639656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and K, Kerem Ozan. 2013. Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models. American Journal of Political Science 57 (1):263277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jennifer L., and Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2001. An Extension and Test of Converse’s Black-and-White Model of Response Stability. The American Political Science Review 95 (2):397413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1983. The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data. The Journal of Politics 45 (4):840865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 35 (1):178205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1995. The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 39 (2):314335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 103 (01):5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election. The Journal of Politics 72 (2):327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections. American Political Science Review 99 (2):185199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. Communication and Opinion. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1):167197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, Samara. 2014. A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (S1):344359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter. Journal of Politics 47 (3):828853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable Voters in Ideal Point Estimation. Political Analysis 18 (2):151171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Howard, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2006. Issues, Party and Character: The Moderating Role of Ideological Thinking on Candidate Evaluation. British Journal of Political Science 37 (01):139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Steven A. 1979. A Simple Direction Model of Electoral Competition. Public Choice 34 (2):141156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, Adam N., and Jenkins, J. Craig. 2004. Structuring Political Opinions: Attitude Consistency and Democratic Competence among the US Mass. The Sociological Quarterly 45 (3):395419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., Brody, Richard A, and Sniderman, Paul M. 1996. Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Kevin M, Martin, Andrew D., and Whitford, Andrew B.. 1999. Voter Choice in Multi-Party Democracies: A Test of Competing Theories and Models. American Journal of Political Science 43 (4):12311247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart E.. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1):93121.Google Scholar
RePass, David E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice. The American Political Science Review 65 (2):389400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice. American Journal of Political Science 32 (3):737757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Zakharov, Alexei. 2009. A Stochastic Model of the 2007 Russian Duma Election. Public Choice 142 (1–2):177194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman, Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin M., and Whitford, Andrew B.. 1998. Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit. Public Choice 97 (2):257293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Byron E., and Claggett, William J.. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of American Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Stoetzer, Lukas F., and Zittlau, Steffen. 2015. Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-Separable Preferences. Political Analysis 23:415428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoetzer, Lukas. 2017. Replication Data for: A matter of representation: spatial voting and inconsistent policy preferences, doi:10.7910/DVN/J0G6K3, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The American National Election Studies (ANES). 2008. 2008-2009 Panel Study [dataset]. Stanford, CA and Ann Arbor, MI: Stanford University and the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, Sunshine D.. 2009. The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4):679703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice. The American Policital Science Review 91 (4):865883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1980. Belief System Constraint and Policy Voting: A Test of the Unidimensional Consistency Model. Political Behavior 2 (2):115146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ye, Min, Li, Quan, and Leiker, Kyle W.. 2011. Evaluating Voter–Candidate Proximity in a Non-Euclidean Space. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 21 (4):497521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stoetzer Dataset

Link

Stoetzer supplementary material

Appendix

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 285 KB

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 93
Total number of PDF views: 485 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th July 2017 - 29th November 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-8465588854-sjrn6 Total loading time: 0.8 Render date: 2020-11-29T10:44:53.228Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sun Nov 29 2020 09:50:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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 Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *