Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:54:30.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Matter of Representation: Spatial Voting and Inconsistent Policy Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2017

Lukas F. Stoetzer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

voting behaviorspatial votingmass belief systemsrepresentation
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 941 - 956
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

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

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response. The American Political Science Review 69 (4):1219–1231.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models. Economics Letters 80 (1):123–129.Google 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 (2):215–232.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Cohen, Michael. 1984. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test. American Journal of Political Science 30 (4):709–728.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M.. 2003. Democracy with Attitudes. In Electoral Democracy, edited by Michael B. MacKuen and George Rabinowitz, 48–82. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Barton, Allen H., and Parsons, R. Wayne. 1977. Measuring Belief System Structure. Public Opinion Quarterly 41 (2):159–180.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey. 2007. An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the US Electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2):139–154.Google Scholar
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):248–266.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice. The Journal of Politics 47 (2):530–555.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. The Two Faces of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 74 (1):78–91.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Public. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by D. E. Apter, 206–261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, Richard M., and DeGroot, Morris H.. 1987. Bayesian Analysis and Uncertainty in Economic Theory. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
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):483–493.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values. American Journal of Political Science 32 (2):416–440.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Jackson, John E.. 1993. Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 87 (3):639–656.Google Scholar
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):263–277.Google Scholar
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):397–413.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1983. The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data. The Journal of Politics 45 (4):840–865.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 35 (1):178–205.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1995. The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 39 (2):314–335.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 103 (01):59–81.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election. The Journal of Politics 72 (2):327.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections. American Political Science Review 99 (2):185–199.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. Communication and Opinion. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1):167–197.Google Scholar
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):347–361.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara. 2014. A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (S1):344–359.Google Scholar
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter. Journal of Politics 47 (3):828–853.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable Voters in Ideal Point Estimation. Political Analysis 18 (2):151–171.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Matthews, Steven A. 1979. A Simple Direction Model of Electoral Competition. Public Choice 34 (2):141–156.Google Scholar
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):395–419.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., Brody, Richard A, and Sniderman, Paul M. 1996. Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
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):1231–1247.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart E.. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1):93–121.Google Scholar
RePass, David E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice. The American Political Science Review 65 (2):389–400.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice. American Journal of Political Science 32 (3):737–757.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman, and Zakharov, Alexei. 2009. A Stochastic Model of the 2007 Russian Duma Election. Public Choice 142 (1–2):177–194.Google Scholar
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):257–293.Google Scholar
Shafer, Byron E., and Claggett, William J.. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of American Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Stoetzer, Lukas F., and Zittlau, Steffen. 2015. Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-Separable Preferences. Political Analysis 23:415–428.Google Scholar
Stoetzer, Lukas. 2017. Replication Data for: A matter of representation: spatial voting and inconsistent policy preferences, doi:10.7910/DVN/J0G6K3, Harvard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, Sunshine D.. 2009. The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4):679–703.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice. The American Policital Science Review 91 (4):865–883.Google Scholar
Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1980. Belief System Constraint and Policy Voting: A Test of the Unidimensional Consistency Model. Political Behavior 2 (2):115–146.Google Scholar
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):497–521.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Stoetzer Dataset

Datasets

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J0G6K3
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Stoetzer supplementary material

Appendix

Download Stoetzer supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 284.7 KB