Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:11:04.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Anders Westholm
Anders Westholm*
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an extensive series of articles, Rabinowitz, Macdonald, and Listhaug have launched a new, directional theory of electoral choice. According to their claims, the new theory is superior to the classical Downsian proximity model. Such a conclusion, however, is not tenable. First, it fails to take proper account of the lower falsifiability of the directional model. Second, it rests on empirical analyses that do not test the two theories on the predictions they actually make. Both are theories of individual choice, which implies intrapersonal comparisons of utility. Prior tests, however, have predominantly taken the form of interpersonal comparisons. A reanalysis based on the proper type of comparison yields an outcome diametrically opposed to that previously obtained. It also reveals an eccentricity effect that largely accounts for the apparent success of the directional model.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 865 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

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

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D.. 1977. “A Method of Scaling with Application to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 71(03):111–30.Google Scholar
Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. 1979. Social Statistics. 2d rev. ed. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1973. “Indifference, Alienation, and Rational Decision: The Effects of Candidate Evaluations on Turnout and the Vote.” Public Choice 15(Summer):1–17.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon, and Roemer, John E.. 1991. “Introduction.” In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, Jon and Roemer, John E.. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilljam, Mikael. 1997. “The Directional Theory under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(01):5–12.Google Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Gilljam, Mikael. N.d. “Implausible Hypotheses in the Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” European Journal of Political Research. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Sören. 1988. The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39(03):41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994a. “Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 38(02):45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994b. “The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects.” Comparative Political Studies 27(07):155–89.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1988. “The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(2):196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1990. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of European Party Systems.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13(3):227–54.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1994a. “Ideology and Party Support in Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of Political Research 25(02):111–49.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1994b. “Issue Perceptions of Parties and Candidates: A Comparison of Norway and the United States.” Scandinavian Political Studies 17(4):273–87.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. “Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems.” American Political Science Review 85(12):1107–31.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1993a. “Direction and Uncertainty in a Model of Issue Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 5(01):61–87.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1993b. “Ideology and Candidate Evaluation.” Public Choice 76(06):59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1995a. “Issue Competition and Multiparty Politics: Insights from the 1993 Norwegian National Election.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1995b. “Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 25(10):453–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73(12):1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III. 1993. “Voting Behavior under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 77(12):739–56.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III. 1994. “A Probabilistic Model for the Spatial Distribution of Party Support in Multiparty Electorates.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 89(12):1190–7.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III. 1995. “Discriminating between the Directional and Proximity Spatial Models of Electoral Competition.” Electoral Studies 14(09):273–87.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 1997. “Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(01):25–48.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C.. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73(12):1071–90.Google Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1997. “Directional versus Proximity Models of Voter: Verisimilitude as the Criterion.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(01):61–74.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1968. Conjecture and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. 2d ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1980. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 1989. “Analyzing Misinformation: Perceptions of Congressional Candidates' Ideologies.” American Journal of Political Science 33(02):272–93.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83(03):93–121.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Listhaug, Ola. 1991. “New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparity Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 24(07):147–85.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Listhaug, Ola. 1993. “Competing Theories of Issue Voting: Is Discounting the Explanation?” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57(06):368–77.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1987. “Measurement Error in Causal Analysis of Panel Data: Attenuated versus Inflated Relationships.” Quality and Quantity 21(1):3–20.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.