Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T07:46:46.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Art of Political Science: Spatial Diagrams as Iconic and Revelatory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Henry E. Brady
Henry E. Brady
Affiliation:
Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley. E-mail: hbrady@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spatial diagrams of politics could and should be iconic for political science in much the same way as supply-and-demand curves are in economics. Many fundamental problems of political science can be connected with them, and many different concepts—such as ideological constraint, cross-pressures, framing, agenda-setting, political competition, voting systems, and party systems, to name just a few—can be illuminated through spatial diagrams. Spatial diagrams raise questions and provide insights. They suggest political maneuvers, possible realignments, and political problems. They provide us with revealing images that aid memory and facilitate analysis. They are a powerful way to think about politics, and we could not do better than to feature them in our textbooks, to use them in our research, and to exhibit them as our brand—as our distinctive way of thinking about how the world works

Information

Type
APSA Presidential Address
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 311 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, Charles Francis, Haynes, Henry W., Pierce, Edward L., and Hill, Clement Hugh. 1896. “Memoir of Rufus Choate.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (second series) 11: 103–105.Google Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. Jr. 1964. “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly.” American Political Science Review 58(3): 642–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org) TIME SERIES CUMULATIVE DATA FILE [dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers and distributors], 2010.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James. 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(2): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkenius, Christian. 1999. “Are There Dimensions in the Brain?” Unpublished manuscript, last modified September 14, 1999. Adobe Acrobat file.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2006. “What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(2): 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Beyle, Herman C. 1931. Identification and Analysis of Attribute-Cluster Blocs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy 56(1): 23–34.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1990. “Dimensional Analysis of Ranking Data.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1017–1048.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1991. “Traits versus Issues: Factor versus Ideal Point Analysis of Candidate Thermometer Ratings.” Political Analysis 2(1): 97–129.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 2001. “Trust the People: Political Party Coalitions and the 2000 Election.” In The Unfinished Election of 2000, ed. Rakove, Jack N.. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 2004. “Introduction: Two Paths to a Science of Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2(2): 295–300.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E.. Stephen Ansolabehere. 1989. “The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics.” The American Political Science Review 83(1): 143–163.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E.. Stephen Ansolabehere., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Collier, David. 2009. “Overview of Political Methodology: Post-Behavioral Movements and Trends.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin, Robert E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E.. Stephen Ansolabehere., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Johnston, David Collier. and Richard. 1987. “What's the Primary Message: Horse Race or Issue Journalism?” In Media and Momentum, eds. Orren, Gary and Polsby, Nelson. New York: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E.. Stephen Ansolabehere., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Kaplan, David Collier. and Richard Johnston. and Cynthia S.. 2009. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Ethnic Identity.” In Measuring Identity, eds. Abdelal, Rawi, Herrera, Yoshiko M., Johnston, Alastair Iain, and McDermott, Rose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E.. Stephen Ansolabehere., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Sniderman, David Collier. and Richard Johnston. and Cynthia S. Kaplan. and Paul M.. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79(4): 1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1971. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1975. “American Politics in the 1970's: Beyond Party?” In The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, eds. Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter Dean. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1964. “Voters and Elections: Past and Present.” Journal of Politics 25: 745–757.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1966. “A Classification of the Presidential Elections.” In Elections and the Political Order, eds. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Chambers, William N., and Burnham, Walter Dean, eds. 1967. The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–370.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1966. “The Problem of Party Distances in Models of Voting Change.” In The Electoral Process, eds. Jennings, M. Kent and Zeigler, L. Harmon. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1955. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles R. 1846. Geological Observations on South America. Being the Third Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the Command of Capt. FitzRoy, R.N. during the Years 1832 to 1836. London: Smith Elder and Company.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(2): 426–448.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1959. Political Parties. 2nd English ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geanakoplos, John. 1992. “Common Knowledge.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6(4): 53–82.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1999. “Culture versus Economics: An American Dilemma.” Social Science History 23(2): 129–172.Google Scholar
Glimcher, Paul W., Dorris, Michael C., and Bayer, Hannah M.. 2005. “Psychological Utility Theory and the Neuroeconomics of Choice.” Games and Economic Behavior 52: 213–256.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1975. “Cross-Cutting Cleavages and Social Conflict.” British Journal of Political Science 5(4): 516–519.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. 1982 (1787–1788). The Federalist. Reprinted with an introduction by Garry Wills as The Federalist Papers. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1904 (1651). Leviathan. Reprinted with notes and ed. by Waller, A.N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Brady, Henry E., and Crête, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Cynthia S., and Brady, Henry E., 1996, “Estonian Events Data File,” Unpublished Data Set, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. Jr. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. Jr. 1959. “Secular Realignment and the Party System.” Journal of Politics 21(2): 198–210.Google Scholar
Laponce, J. A. 1981. Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, . 1995. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53(1): 1–64.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin., and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, eds. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1955 (1689). Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government. Reprinted as Of Civil Government: Second Treatise. Chicago: Gateway Editions, dist. Henry Regnery Company.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1965. “A Method for Identifying Issues and Factions from Legislative Votes.” American Political Science Review 59(4): 909–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1970. Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting: Methods of Statistical Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan Jr., and Meldrum, James. 1960. “Critical Elections in Illinois: 1888–1958.” American Political Science Review 54(3): 669–683.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2002. Electoral Realignments. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1975. “Policy Related Voting and Electoral Equilibrium.” Econometrica 43(5-6): 815–843.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Allan H., and Richard, Scott F.. 1981. “A Rational Model of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 89: 914–927.Google Scholar
Merkl, Peter H. 1969. “Review: Political Cleavages and Party Systems.” World Politics 21(3): 469–485.Google Scholar
Morgan, Robert J., 1981. “Madison's Analysis of the Sources of Political Authority.” American Political Science Review 75(3): 613–625.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Morrison, Margaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Neto, Octavio Amorim, and Cox, Gary. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Odegard, Peter H. 1935. “Political Parties and Group Pressures.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 179: 68–81.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 357–384.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “D-Nominate after 10 Years: A Comparative Update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(1): 5–29.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 1976. “Political Cleavage Structure, Cross-Pressure Processes, and Partisanship: An Empirical Test of the Theory.” American Journal of Political Science 20(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1928. Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Roemer, John, Lee, Woojin, and van der Straeten, Karine. 2007. Racism, Xenophobia, and Distribution: Multi-Issue Politics in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1968. “The Structuring of Mass Politics in the Smaller European Democracies: A Developmental Typology.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 10: 173–210.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1977. “Towards a Generalized Concept of Verzuiling: A Preliminary Note.” Political Studies 25: 563–570.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. 1966. “Discovering Voting Groups in the United Nations.” American Political Science Review 60(2): 327–339.Google Scholar
Rustichini, Aldo. 2009. “Neuroeconomics: What Have We Found, and What Should We Search For?” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 19: 672–677.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1952. “Political Parties and the Public Interest.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 280: 18–26.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1957. “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1957), pp. 933–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Miller, Gary. 2007. “Elections and Activist Coalitions in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 518–531.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1962. “The 1960 Term of the Supreme Court: A Psychological Analysis.” American Political Science Review 56(1): 90–107.Google Scholar
Shafer, Byron E., and Claggett, William J.M.. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of Modern American Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Arthur W. 1914. “The Balkan Question—The Key to a Permanent Peace.” American Political Science Review 8(4): 563–582.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1973. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael, and Rae, Douglas. 1969. “An Analysis of Crosscutting between Political Cleavages.” Comparative Politics 1(4): 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Julius. 1951. Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos. 1977. “Features of similarity.” Psychological Review 84: 327–352.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Brady, Henry E., and Nie, Norman. 1995.American Citizen Participation Study, 1990 [Computer file]. ICPSR06635-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], doi:10.3886/ICPSR06635Google Scholar
Watson, James D., and Crick, Francis. 1953. “A Structure for Deoxyribonucleic Acid.” Nature 171: 737–738.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1990. “Interests and Deliberation in the American Republic, or, Why James Madison Would Never Have Received the James Madison Award.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23(4): 558–562.Google Scholar
Zariski, Raphael. 1960. “Party Factions and Comparative Politics: Some Preliminary Observations.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 4(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan. 1975. “Political Cleavage: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 5(2): 231–248.Google Scholar