Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T14:53:38.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Common Left-Right Scale for Voters and Parties in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

James Lo ,
Sven-Oliver Proksch  and
Thomas Gschwend
James Lo
Affiliation:
SFB 884, University of Mannheim, L13, 17, 68131 Mannheim, Germany. e-mail: lo@uni-mannheim.de
Sven-Oliver Proksch*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada
Thomas Gschwend
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Mannheim, A 5, 6, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany. e-mail: gschwend@uni-mannheim.de
*
e-mail: so.proksch@mcgill.ca (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This article presents a scaling approach to jointly estimate the locations of voters, parties, and European political groups on a common left-right scale. Although most comparative research assumes that cross-national comparisons of voters and parties are possible, few correct for systematic biases commonly known to exist in surveys or examine whether survey data are comparable across countries. Our scaling method addresses scale perception in surveys and links cross-national surveys through new bridging observations. We apply our approach to the 2009 European Election Survey and demonstrate that the improvement in party estimates that one gains from fixing various survey bias issues is significant. Our scaling strategy provides left-right positions of voters and of 162 political parties, and we demonstrate that variables based on rescaled voter and party positions on the left-right dimension significantly improve the fit of a cross-national vote choice model.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Spring 2014 , pp. 205 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: This article was awarded the 2012 Gosnell Prize for Excellence in Political Methodology. The authors are grateful to Jae Jae Spoon and Ken Benoit for providing replication materials and helpful comments, and to Jonathan Slapin and Catherine de Vries for helpful suggestions. Also, the authors thank Dominic Nyhuis and Steffen Zittlau for excellent research assistance. Previous versions of this article were presented at the PIREDEU Final User Community Conference in Brussels, November 18–19, 2010, the Seminar Series of the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston, December 2010, the Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association in Boston, March 3–5, 2011, and at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, April 12–15, 2012. Replication materials are available at the Political Analysis Dataverse, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/23113 (Lo, Proksch, and Gschwend 2013, Replication data for: A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/23113 IQSS Dataverse Network [Distributor] V1 [Version]).

References

Adams, J., Merrill, S., and Grofman, B. 2005. A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J., and McKelvey, R. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71(1): 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R., and Nagler, J. 2004. Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12(1): 46–62.Google Scholar
Bafumi, J., and Herron, M. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, Congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.Google Scholar
Bawn, K., and Somer-Topcu, Z. 2012. Government versus opposition at the polls: How governing status affects the impact of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 433–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2005. Mapping the Irish policy space: Voter and party spaces in preferential elections. Economic and Social Review 36(2): 83.Google Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, K., and McElroy, G. 2007. Party groups and policy positions in the European Parliament. Party Politics 13(1): 5–28.Google Scholar
Bergara, M., Richman, B., and Spiller, P. 2003. Modeling Supreme Court strategic decision making: The Congressional constraint. Legislative Studies Quarterly 28(2): 247–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., and Nevitte, N. 2001. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 81–91.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E. 1985. The perils of survey research: Inter-personally incomparable responses. Political Methodology 11 (3–4): 269–91.Google Scholar
Calvo, E., and Hellwig, T. 2011. Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under different electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 27–41.Google Scholar
Campbell, D., and Fiske, D. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2): 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, R., Lewis, J. B., Lo, J., Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 2009. Measuring bias and uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis 17(3): 261–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R., Farrell, D., and McAllister, I. 2011. Political parties and democratic linkage: How parties organize democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Vries, C. 2007. Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? European Union Politics 8(3): 363–85.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Duch, R., May, J., and Armstrong, D. II. 2010. Coalition-directed voting in multi-party democracies. American Political Science Review 104: 698–719.Google Scholar
Duch, R., and Stevenson, R. 2008. The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
EES. 2011. European Parliament election study, voter data, advance release (23 June 2011). www.piredeu.eu.Google Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. 1994. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Egmond, M., Sapir, E., van der Brug, W., Hobolt, S., and Franklin, M. 2010. EES 2009 voter study: Advance release notes. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. 1984. The spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S., and Romero, D. W. 1990. Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review 84(4): 1103–26.Google Scholar
Ezrow, L. 2010. Linking citizens and parties: How electoral systems matter for political representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, E., and Lewis, J. 2004. Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy 112(6): 1364–83.Google Scholar
Golder, M., and Stramski, J. 2010. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90–106.Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., Levitt, S., and Snyder, J. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the US Congress. American Political Science Review 93(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Hinich, M., and Munger, M. C. 1994. Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A., and Roland, G. 2007. Democratic politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S. B., Spoon, J.-J., and Tilley, J. 2009. A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Parliament elections. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L., Bakker, R., Brigevich, A., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Marks, G., Rovny, J., and Steenbergen, M. 2010. Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research 49: 687–703.Google Scholar
Jessee, S. A. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103(1): 59–81.Google Scholar
Kedar, O. 2005. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 99(2): 185–99.Google Scholar
King, G., Murray, C., Salomon, J., and Tandon, A. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review 98(1): 191–207.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. B., and Poole, K. T. 2004. Measuring bias and uncertainty in ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis 12(2): 105–27.Google Scholar
Lo, J., Proksch, S.-O., and Gschwend, T. 2013. Replication data for: A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/23113 (accessed November 8, 2013).Google Scholar
Macdonald, S. E., Listhaug, O., and Rabinowitz, G. 1991. Issues and party support in multyparty systems. American Political Science Review 85(4): 1107–31.Google Scholar
Mair, P., and Mudde, C. 1998. The party family and its study. Annual Review of Political Science 1(1): 211–29.Google Scholar
Markus, G. B., and Converse, P. E. 1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. 73 (4): 1055–70.Google Scholar
McElroy, G., and Benoit, K. 2010. Party policy and group affiliation in the European Parliament. British Journal of Political Science 40(2): 377–98.Google Scholar
McElroy, G., and Benoit, K. 2012. Policy positioning in the European Parliament. European Union Politics 13(1): 150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitatative choice behavior. In Frontiers of Economics, ed. Zarembka, P. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T., and Poole, K. 1987. The relationship between information, ideology, and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31(2): 511–30.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. A. M. 2009. Campaign learning and vote determinants. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 445–60.Google Scholar
Poole, K. 2005. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, K., Rosenthal, H., Lewis, J., Lo, J., and Carroll, R. 2011. Recovering a basic space in R. Working paper.Google Scholar
Powell, G. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, K. 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal continuous response. Political Analysis 12: 338–53.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G., and Macdonald, S. E. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83(1): 93–121.Google Scholar
Rehm, P., and Reilly, T. 2010. United we stand: Constituency homogeneity and comparative party polarization. Electoral Studies 29(1): 40–53.Google Scholar
Reif, K., and Schmitt, H. 1980. Nine second-order national elections. A conceptual framework for the analysis of european election results. European Journal of Political Research 8(1): 3–44.Google Scholar
Saiegh, S. 2009. Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: Evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 117–45.Google Scholar
Shor, B., Berry, C., and McCarty, N. 2010. A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(3): 417–48.Google Scholar
Shor, B., and McCarty, N. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.Google Scholar
Treier, S. 2010. Where does the president stand? Measuring presidential ideology. Political Analysis 18(1): 124.Google Scholar
Westholm, A. 1997. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 91(4): 865–83.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lo et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Lo et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 406.7 KB