Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach

  • Ingrid Mauerer (a1)

Abstract

Empirical applications of the spatial theory of elections typically rely on the discrete choice framework to arrive at probabilistic voting models. Whereas in the classic model voter choice is solely a function of spatial proximity, neo-Downsian models also incorporate voter-specific nonpolicy attributes, which are represented by sociodemographic characteristics. One prominent line of such probabilistic models, Schofield’s Valence Model, additionally includes party valences into voter utility functions. The model rests on the estimated party intercepts to measure the valence advantages empirically. The party intercepts are ordered based on their values, and then this valence ranking is used further to predict equilibrium locations. The paper demonstrates that this measurement strategy does not provide unique results in fully specified models due to central properties of discrete choice models and the specific nature of party intercepts in these models. Drawing on a simple example based on mass election surveys from Germany, it is shown that the valence ranking, the crucial factor to investigate how valence differences affect the nature of spatial competition, is highly sensitive to arbitrary coding decisions. As a consequence, it is impossible to represent valence with the constants and to infer something substantial from the resulting valence ranking.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Footnotes

Hide All

Contributing Editor: Jeff Gill

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Adams, J. 1999. “Multiparty Spatial Competition with Probabilistic Voting.” Public Choice 99(3):259274.
Adams, J., Ezrow, L., Merrill, S. III, and Somer-Topcu, Z.. 2013. “Does Collective Responsibility for Performance Alter Party Strategies? Policy-Seeking Parties in Proportional Systems.” British Journal of Political Science 43(1):123.
Adams, J., and Merrill, S. III. 1999a. “Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Strategies so Extreme?American Journal of Political Science 43(3):765791.
Adams, J., and Merrill, S. III. 1999b. “Party Policy Equilibrium for Alternative Spatial Voting Models: An Application to the Norwegian Storting.” European Journal of Political Research 36(2):235255.
Adams, J., and Merrill, S. III. 2000. “Spatial Models of Candidate Competition and the 1988 French Presidential Election: Are Presidential Candidates Vote-Maximizers?The Journal of Politics 62(3):729756.
Adams, J., and Merrill, S. III. 2009. “Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model.” British Journal of Political Science 39(3):539558.
Adams, J., Merrill, S. III, and Grofman, B.. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-national Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, J., Merrill, S. III, Simas, E. N., and Stone, W. J.. 2011. “When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections.” The Journal of Politics 73(1):1730.
Alvarez, R. M., and Nagler, J.. 1995. “Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39(3):714744.
Alvarez, R. M., and Nagler, J.. 1998. “When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1):5596.
Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., and Bowler, S.. 2000. “Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election.” American Political Science Review 94(1):131149.
Ansolabehere, S., and Snyder, J. M. Jr. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models.” Public Choice 103(3):327336.
Ansolabehere, S., and Puy, M. S.. 2018. “Measuring Issue-Salience in Voters’ Preferences.” Electoral Studies 51:103114.
Aragonès, E., and Palfrey, T. R.. 2002. “Mixed Equilibrium in a Downsian Model with a Favored Candidate.” Journal of Economic Theory 103(1):131161.
Ashworth, S., and de Mesquita, E. B.. 2009. “Elections with Platform and Valence Competition.” Games and Economic Behavior 67(1):191216.
Burden, B. C. 1997. “Deterministic and Probabilistic Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 41(4):11501169.
Buttice, M. K., and Stone, W. J.. 2012. “Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections.” The Journal of Politics 74(3):870887.
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., and Whiteley, P.. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., and Whiteley, P.. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., and Whiteley, P.. 2011. “Valence Politics and Electoral Choice in Britain, 2010.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 21(2):237253.
Coughlin, P. J. 1992. Probabilistic Voting Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., and Ordeshook, P. C.. 1970. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” The American Political Science Review 64(2):426448.
Dewan, T., and Shepsle, K. A.. 2011. “Political Economy Models of Elections.” Annual Review of Political Science 14(1):311330.
Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Endersby, J. W., and Galatas, S. E.. 1998. “British Parties and Spatial Competition: Dimensions of Party Evaluation in the 1992 Election.” Public Choice 97(3):363382.
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J.. 1982. “Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition.” The Journal of Politics 44(1):115130.
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J.. 1989. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.” Public Choice 61(2):101113.
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J.. 1990. Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evrenk, H. 2019. “Valence Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, edited by Congleton, R. D., Grofman, B., and Voigt, S., 266291. New York: Oxford University Press.
Falter, J. W., Gabriel, O. W., and Rattinger, H.. 2012 “Political Attitudes, Political Participation and Voter Conduct in United Germany 1998.” doi:10.4232/1.11461, ZA3066, Data file Version 3.0.0. Cologne, Germany: GESIS Data Archive.
Feldman, S., and Conover, P. J.. 1983. “Candidates, Issues and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perception.” The Journal of Politics 45(4):810839.
Franchino, F., and Zucchini, F.. 2015. “Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates.” Political Science Research and Methods 3(2):221241.
Gallego, M., and Schofield, N.. 2016. “Do Parties Converge to the Electoral Mean in All Political Systems?Journal of Theoretical Politics 28(2):288330.
Granberg, D., and Brown, T. A.. 1992. “The Perception of Ideological Distance.” The Western Political Quarterly 45(3):727750.
Green, J., and Jennings, W.. 2017. “Valence.” In The SAGE Handbook of Electoral Behavior, edited by Arzheimer, K., Evans, J., and Lewis-Beck, M. S., 538560. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Grofman, B. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7(1):2546.
Groseclose, T. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4):862886.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., and Greene, W. H.. 2015. Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, J. E. 2014. “Location, Location, Location: The Davis-Hinich Model of Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 159(1):197218.
Kedar, O. 2005. “How Diffusion of Power in Parliaments Affects Voter Choice.” Political Analysis 13(4):410429.
Kurella, A., and Pappi, F. U.. 2015. “Combining Ideological and Policy Distances with Valence for a Model of Party Competition in Germany 2009.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 27(1):86107.
Lacy, D., and Burden, B. C.. 1999. “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 43(1):233255.
Lin, T., Enelow, J. M., and Dorussen, H.. 1999. “Equilibrium in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 98(1):5982.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., and Swait, J. D.. 2009. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manski, C. F. 1977. “The Structure of Random Utility Models.” Theory and Decision 8(3):229254.
Mauerer, I.2016. “A Party-Varying Model of Issue Voting. A Cross-National Study.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Munich (LMU), Germany.
Mauerer, I.2019. “Replication Data for: The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PIV1KX, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Mauerer, I., Thurner, P. W., and Debus, M.. 2015. “Under Which Conditions Do Parties Attract Voters’ Reactions to Issues? Party-Varying Issue Voting in German Elections 1987–2009.” West European Politics 38(6):12511273.
Mauerer, I., Pößnecker, W., Thurner, P. W., and Tutz, G.. 2015. “Modeling Electoral Choices in Multiparty Systems with High-Dimensional Data: A Regularized Selection of Parameters Using the Lasso Approach.” Journal of Choice Modelling 16(3):2342.
McFadden, D. L. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by Zarembka, P., 105142. New York: Academic Press.
Merrill, S. III, and Adams, J.. 2001. “Computing Nash Equilibria in Probabilistic, Multiparty Spatial Models with Nonpolicy Components.” Political Analysis 9(4):347361.
Quinn, K. M., Martin, A. D., and Whitford, A. B.. 1999. “Voter Choice in Multi-Party Democracies: A Test of Competing Theories and Models.” American Journal of Political Science 43(4):12311247.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C., and Whiteley, P.. 2011. “Downs, Stokes and the Dynamics of Electoral Choice.” British Journal of Political Science 41(2):287314.
Schofield, N. 2003. “Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(4):371383.
Schofield, N. 2004. “Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘Valence’ Model of Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(4):447481.
Schofield, N. 2005. “A Valence Model of Political Competition in Britain: 1992–1997.” Electoral Studies 24(3):347370.
Schofield, N., and Kurella, A.-S.. 2015. “Party Activists in the 2009 German Federal Elections.” In The Political Economy of Governance: Institutions, Political Performance and Elections, edited by Schofield, N. and Caballero, G., 293311. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Schofield, N., and Zakharov, A.. 2010. “A Stochastic Model of the 2007 Russian Duma Election.” Public Choice 142(1):177194.
Schofield, N., and Miller, G.. 2007. “Elections and Activist Coalitions in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science 51(3):518531.
Schofield, N., Miller, G., and Martin, A. D.. 2003. “Critical Elections and Political Realignments in the USA: 1860–2000.” Political Studies 51(2):217240.
Schofield, N., and Sened, I.. 2005a. “Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists and Voters: Why Is the Political Center So Empty?European Journal of Political Research 44(3):355390.
Schofield, N., and Sened, I.. 2005b. “Multiparty Competition in Israel, 1988–96.” British Journal of Political Science 35(4):635663.
Schofield, N., and Sened, I.. 2006. “Multiparty Democracy. Elections and Legislative Politics.” In Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schofield, N., Gallego, M., and Jeon, J. S.. 2011. “Leaders, Voters and Activists in the Elections in Great Britain 2005 and 2010.” Electoral Studies 30(3):484496.
Serra, G. 2010. “Polarization of What? A Model of Elections with Endogenous Valence.” The Journal of Politics 72(2):426437.
Stoetzer, L. F., and Zittlau, S.. 2015. “Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences.” Political Analysis 23(3):415428.
Stokes, D. E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” The American Political Science Review 57(2):368377.
Stokes, D. E. 1992. “Valence Politics.” In Electoral Politics, edited by Kavanagh, D., 141164. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stone, W. J. 2017. Candidates and Voters: Ideology, Valence, and Representation in U.S. Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, W. J., and Simas, E. N.. 2010. “Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2):371388.
Stone, W. J., Maisel, L. S., and Maestas, C. D.. 2004. “Quality Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence.” American Journal of Political Science 48(3):479495.
Thurner, P. W. 2000. “The Empirical Application of the Spatial Theory of Voting in Multiparty Systems with Random Utility Models.” Electoral Studies 19(4):493517.
Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd edn.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Whiteley, P., Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., and Stewart, M. C.. 2013. Affluence, Austerity and Electoral Change in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MathJax
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see http://www.mathjax.org.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Mauerer Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Mauerer supplementary material
Mauerer supplementary material

 Unknown (178 KB)
178 KB

The Neglected Role and Variability of Party Intercepts in the Spatial Valence Approach

  • Ingrid Mauerer (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.