Skip to main content
×
×
Home

A Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences

  • Lukas F. Stoetzer
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.

  • View HTML
    • 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
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response. The American Political Science Review 69 (4):12191231.
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.
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models. Economics Letters 80 (1):123129.
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.
Axelrod, Robert, and Cohen, Michael. 1984. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Free Press.
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test. American Journal of Political Science 30 (4):709728.
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.
Barton, Allen H., and Parsons, R. Wayne. 1977. Measuring Belief System Structure. Public Opinion Quarterly 41 (2):159180.
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey. 2007. An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the US Electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2):139154.
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.
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice. The Journal of Politics 47 (2):530555.
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. The Two Faces of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 74 (1):7891.
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.
Cyert, Richard M., and DeGroot, Morris H.. 1987. Bayesian Analysis and Uncertainty in Economic Theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
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.
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values. American Journal of Political Science 32 (2):416440.
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Jackson, John E.. 1993. Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 87 (3):639656.
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.
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.
Jackson, John E. 1983. The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data. The Journal of Politics 45 (4):840865.
Jacoby, William G. 1991. Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 35 (1):178205.
Jacoby, William G. 1995. The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 39 (2):314335.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 103 (01):5981.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election. The Journal of Politics 72 (2):327.
Kedar, Orit. 2005. When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections. American Political Science Review 99 (2):185199.
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. Communication and Opinion. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1):167197.
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.
Klar, Samara. 2014. A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (S1):344359.
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter. Journal of Politics 47 (3):828853.
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable Voters in Ideal Point Estimation. Political Analysis 18 (2):151171.
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.
Matthews, Steven A. 1979. A Simple Direction Model of Electoral Competition. Public Choice 34 (2):141156.
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.
Mutz, Diana C., Brody, Richard A, and Sniderman, Paul M. 1996. Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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.
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart E.. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1):93121.
RePass, David E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice. The American Political Science Review 65 (2):389400.
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice. American Journal of Political Science 32 (3):737757.
Schofield, Norman, and Zakharov, Alexei. 2009. A Stochastic Model of the 2007 Russian Duma Election. Public Choice 142 (1–2):177194.
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.
Shafer, Byron E., and Claggett, William J.. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of American Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stoetzer, Lukas F., and Zittlau, Steffen. 2015. Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-Separable Preferences. Political Analysis 23:415428.
Stoetzer, Lukas. 2017. Replication Data for: A matter of representation: spatial voting and inconsistent policy preferences, doi:10.7910/DVN/J0G6K3, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
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.
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, Sunshine D.. 2009. The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4):679703.
Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice. The American Policital Science Review 91 (4):865883.
Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1980. Belief System Constraint and Policy Voting: A Test of the Unidimensional Consistency Model. Political Behavior 2 (2):115146.
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.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Stoetzer supplementary material
Appendix

 PDF (285 KB)
285 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Stoetzer Dataset
Datasets

 Unknown

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 48
Total number of PDF views: 153 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 708 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th July 2017 - 26th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.