Spatially Dispersed Ties Among Interdependent Citizens: Connecting Individuals and Aggregates

A continuing tradition in contextual analysis locates individual citizens within spatially defined, aggregate settings in an effort to provide a more complete account of individual behavior. Given the increasing individual mobility within society, it is less than clear that geography continues to define the boundaries on meaningful aggregate contexts—people have become less tied to their geographic contexts, and technology makes it possible for citizens to maintain relationships independently of space, distance, and location. In this paper we pursue an analysis and set of analytic techniques that are designed to connect individual voters, their communication networks, and the geography that surrounds them. The analytic techniques utilize a unique data set that captures spatial dispersion in an individual's social and political network, and from these analyses we can draw two conclusions. First, spatial dispersion in a network does have an effect on interaction within the network; the world is not full of voters who operate independently of their geographic contexts. Second, spatial dispersion provides opportunities to connect citizens living in different geographic contexts, thereby creating bridges for communication across different contexts. These findings suggest that scholars might profitably incorporate geography as an important component of the complex relationships among and between individual citizens in explaining the role of the individual in modern democratic politics.

[1]  Warren E. Miller.  One-Party Politics and the Voter , 1956, American Political Science Review.

[2]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. , 1955 .

[3]  Herbert Tingsten,et al.  Political behavior : studies in election statistics , 1937 .

[4]  Michael W. Giles,et al.  David Duke and Black Threat: An Old Hypothesis Revisited , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[5]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Making the Most Of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation , 2000 .

[6]  Robert Huckfeldt,et al.  Urban contexts, spatially dispersed networks, and the diffusion of political information , 2002 .

[7]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results , 2003 .

[8]  Walter Dean Burnham,et al.  Critical Elections: And the Mainsprings of American Politics , 1970 .

[9]  Leland Gerson Neuberg,et al.  A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data , 1999 .

[10]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[11]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States , 1994 .

[13]  A. Przeworski,et al.  Contextual Models of Political Behavior , 1974 .

[14]  Lawrence H. Boyd,et al.  Contextual Analysis: Concepts and Statistical Techniques , 1979 .

[15]  Michael Boss.  Economic theory of democracy , 1974 .

[16]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign , 1995 .

[17]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[18]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics , 1989 .

[19]  John D. Sprague,et al.  Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism , 1986 .

[20]  Michael B. Mackuen.  Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign.Robert Huckfeldt , John Sprague , 1996 .

[21]  Allan L. McCutcheon,et al.  Cross-Level Inference , 1995 .