On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped

In a recent article, Westholm (1997) critiques the directional theory of issue voting and seeks to rehabilitate the proximity model. He contends that the theories must be assessed by how well they predict choice, and that in choice-based tests the proximity model is superior. Both of these contentions are wrong. Westholm's empirical results are artifacts of his use of an issue index. Once different issues are allowed to have different impact, directional theory outperforms proximity theory in predicting vote (which Westholm does not analyze) and thermometer differences (which he does). Further, the whole premise of choice-based testing is flawed, because the tests can only be performed on underspecified models that lack verisimilitude. Rather than choice, evaluation is the appropriate focus for theory testing. Both theories predict evaluation, and comparisons based on evaluation are analytically robust. We conclude by discussing the power of the theories to explain real politics.

[1]  Issue competition in the 1993 Norwegian national election , 1998 .

[2]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: valence, position, and direction in democratic politics , 1998 .

[3]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections , 1998 .

[4]  Anders Westholm.  Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[5]  B. Grofman,et al.  Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: II , 1997 .

[6]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  Issues and Party Competition in the Netherlands , 1996 .

[7]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting , 1995, British Journal of Political Science.

[8]  M. Lodge,et al.  The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[9]  Marijke Breuning,et al.  Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation , 1994 .

[10]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections , 1994 .

[11]  Torben Iversen.  "Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting" , 1994 .

[12]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  Ideology and party support in comparative perspective , 1994 .

[13]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  Ideology and the theory of political choice , 1994 .

[14]  Ideology and candidate evaluation , 1993 .

[15]  Glenn Platt,et al.  Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison , 1992 .

[16]  M. Laver,et al.  Policy and Party Competition , 1992 .

[17]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[18]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology , 1991 .

[19]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  New Players in an Old Game , 1991 .

[20]  Michael Laver,et al.  Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe , 1990 .

[21]  The Norwegian parliamentary election of 1989 , 1990 .

[22]  H. Valen.  The Storting Election of 1989: Polarization and Protest , 1990 .

[23]  Kathleen M. McGraw,et al.  An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[24]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  A Directional Theory of Issue Voting , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[25]  Lynda W. Powell.  Analyzing Misinformation: Perceptions of Congressional Candidates' Ideologies* , 1989 .

[26]  D. J. Woehr.  Performance evaluation :examination of the relationship between memory and judgment , 1988 .

[27]  D. Granberg,et al.  The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States , 1988 .

[28]  G. O'donnell.  The Political System , 1987 .

[29]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[30]  James M. Enelow,et al.  The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction , 1984 .

[31]  H. Daalder.  In Search of the Center of European Party Systems , 1984, American Political Science Review.

[32]  Melvin J. Hinich,et al.  The Spatial Theory Of Voting , 1984 .

[33]  Gregory B. Markus,et al.  Political Attitudes during an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study , 1982, American Political Science Review.

[34]  Philip E. Converse,et al.  A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice , 1979, American Political Science Review.

[35]  D. Kinder,et al.  Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates. , 1978 .

[36]  G. Sartori.  Parties and Party Systems: A Framework of Analysis , 1976 .

[37]  I. Lakatos.  Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1976 .

[38]  K. Shepsle.  The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition , 1972, American Political Science Review.

[39]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting , 1972, American Political Science Review.

[40]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[41]  M. Hinich,et al.  An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process , 1970, American Political Science Review.

[42]  A. Downs.  An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .