Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:43:22.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulating Models of Issue Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Stuart Elaine Macdonald ,
George Rabinowitz  and
Ola Listhaug
Stuart Elaine Macdonald
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265. e-mail: macdonald@unc.edu
George Rabinowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265. e-mail: rabinowitz@unc.edu (corresponding author)
Ola Listhaug
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. e-mail: olal@svt.ntnu.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How should one analyze data when the underlying models being tested are statistically intractable? In this article, we offer a simulation approach that involves creating sets of artificial data with fully known generating models that can be meaningfully compared to real data. The strategy depends on constructing simulations that are well matched to the data against which they will be compared. Our particular concern is to consider concurrently how voters place parties on issue scales and how they evaluate parties based on issues. We reconsider the Lewis and King (2000) analysis of issue voting in Norway. The simulation findings resolve the ambiguity that Lewis and King report, as voters appear to assimilate and contrast party placements and to evaluate parties directionally. The simulations also provide a strong caveat against the use of individually perceived party placements in analyses of issue voting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2007 , pp. 406 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Aardal, Bernt. 1990. The Norwegian Parliamentary Election of 1989. Electoral Studies 9: 151–8.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. 2006. Change and continuity in the 2004 elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. Mass political attitudes and the survey response. American Political Science Review 69: 1218–31.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A unified theory of party competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71: 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, 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.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1998. Economics, entitlements, and social issues: Voter choice in the 1996 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science 42: 1349–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. 1954. Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American voter. New York: Wiley.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: 426–48.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Soren. 1988. The political system matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Jeffrey D., and Corrigan, Bryce E. 2006. Specification issues in proximity models of candidate evaluation (with issue importance). Political Analysis 14: 393–420.Google Scholar
Heider, Fritz. 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology 21: 107–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Heider, Fritz. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C. 1994. Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Pollard, Walker. 1981. A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–41.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994. Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.Google Scholar
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., and Krosnick, Jon A. 1983. Judging the positions of political candidates: Models of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 952–63.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2003. Policy balancing in comparative context: Institutional mediation of voter behavior. Dissertation. Department of Government at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 99: 185–99.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1978. Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 859–71.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2003. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review 97: 567–83. (Reprinted with printing errors corrected, February, 2004.)Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. Americans' perceptions of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues 46: 159–82.Google Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108: 480–98.Google Scholar
Lane, Jan-Erik, and Ersson, Svante. 1987. Politics and society in Western Europe. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and King, Gary. 2000. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8: 21–33.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments: An introduction. In Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives, ed. Lipset, S. M., and Rokkan, S., 1–64. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1997. Comment: On ‘correcting’ for rationalization. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1998. On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics 60: 653–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 2001. Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. Journal of Politics 63: 482–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 85: 1107–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. 1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A unified theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III, Grofman, Bernard, and Adams, James. 2001. Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the USA. European Journal of Political Research 40: 199–221.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. 1972. Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam war issue. American Political Science Review 66: 979–95.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Signorino Curtis, S. 1999. Strategic interaction and the statistical analysis of international conflict. American Political Science Review 93: 279–97.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57: 368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valen, Henry. 1990. The storting election of 1989: Polarization and protest. Scandinavian Political Studies 13: 277–90.Google Scholar
Visser, Max. 1994. Policy voting, projection, and persuasion: An application of balance theory to electoral behavior. Political Psychology 15: 699–711.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 91: 865–85.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 2001. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 63: 436–81.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Macdonald et al. supplementary material

Table A1

Download Macdonald et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 21.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Macdonald et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Macdonald et al. supplementary material(File)
File 251.8 KB