Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T19:03:29.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

STEPHEN A. JESSEE
STEPHEN A. JESSEE*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
*
Stephen A. Jessee is Assistant Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1800, Austin, TX 78712 (sjessee@mail.utexas.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The theory of spatial voting has played a large role in the development of important results across many areas of political science. Directly testing the foundational assumptions of spatial voting theory, however, has not been possible with existing data. Using a novel survey design, this article obtains estimates of voter ideology on the same scale as candidate positions. The results of this scaling demonstrate that voters possess meaningful ideologies and, furthermore, that these beliefs are strongly related to the sorts of policy proposals considered in Congress. These ideology estimates are then used to uncover the actual relationships between ideology and vote choice for citizens of various types in the 2004 presidential election. Although the choices of independent voters are shown to be largely consistent with the assumptions of spatial voting theory, the decision rules used by partisans differ strongly from what unbiased spatial voting would imply. Although partisans do converge toward the behavior of independents, and hence toward the assumptions of spatial voting theory, as information levels increase, we see that even highly informed partisans show significant differences from what would be implied by unbiased spatial voting theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 59 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1992. “Social Psychology, Demographic Variables, and Linear Regression: Breaking the Iron Triangle in Voting Research.” Political Behavior 14 (3): 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James F. 1999. “Multicandidate Spatial Competition with Probabilistic Voting.” Public Choice 100: 103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James F. 2001. “A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively.” British Journal of Political Science 31: 121–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James F., Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, Michael R., and Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. “Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 714–44.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: 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M.. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Elections Models.” Public Choice 103: 327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates Across Time and Institutions for the Courts, Congress, and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Frank B. 1992. Item Response Theory. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making.” The Journal of Political Economy 56: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1972. “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 450–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Warren E., Miller, Phillip E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. “The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74: 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, David. 1967. “Models of the Working of a Two-Party Electoral System—i.” Public Choice 3: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, David. 1968. “Models of the Working of a Two-Party Electoral System—ii.” Public Choice 5: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data: A Unified Approach.” American Political Science Review 98: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Aptar, David E.. New York: Free Press.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): 426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Romero, David. 1990. “Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Voter.” American Political Science Review 84: 1103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent. 2007. American Public Opinion: Its Origin, Content and Impact. 7th ed.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1997. “Ideology: A Definitional Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 957–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location when one Candidate has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 862–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M.. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” RAND Journal of Economics 28: 142–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” The Economic Journal XXXIX: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon D. 2004. “Bayesian Analysis for Political Research.” Annual Reviews of Political Science 7: 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A., and Rivers, Douglas. 2008. “Voter Perceptions of Legislator Positions.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Jost, John T. 2006. “The End of the End of Ideology.” American Psychologist 61 (7): 651–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. “Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication does Matter.” Journal of Politics 47: 828–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” American Political Science Review 91: 585–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1952. The People's Choice. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Tse-min, Enelow, James M., and Dorussen, Han. 1999. “Equilibrium in Multiparty Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 98: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2000. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Understanding and Expanding the Limits of Rationality 183–213. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert, and Bullock, John. 2008. “Don't Know' Means ‘Don't Know’: Dk Responses and the Public's Level of Political Knowledge.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil M., and Krosnick, John A.. 2007. The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples. Political Analysis 15 (3): 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory A., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. 1999. “Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” Political Analysis 8 (1): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 224–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marrianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2007. “Does Mode Matter for Modeling Political Choice? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study.” Political Analysis 15 (3): 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2002. “Existence of a General Political Equilibrium.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman, Martin, Andrew, Quinn, Kevin, and Whitford, Andrew. 2004. “Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘valence’ Model of Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16: 447–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Tsai, Yung-Mei. 1981. “Personal Finances and Voting Behavior: A Reanalysis.” American Politics Research 9 (4): 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegelhalter, David J., Thomas, Andrew, and Best, Nickey G.. 1999. WinBUGS Version 1.4. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57: 368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, Patrick, Allum, Nick, and Smith, Patten. 2008. “An Experiment on the Measurement of Political Knowledge in Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 85 (1): 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. “Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, Houweling, Robert, P., and Sniderman, Paul M.. 2007. “The Political Logic of a Downsian Space.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.