Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election

The theory of spatial voting has played a large role in the development of important results across many areas of political science. Directly testing the foundational assumptions of spatial voting theory, however, has not been possible with existing data. Using a novel survey design, this article obtains estimates of voter ideology on the same scale as candidate positions. The results of this scaling demonstrate that voters possess meaningful ideologies and, furthermore, that these beliefs are strongly related to the sorts of policy proposals considered in Congress. These ideology estimates are then used to uncover the actual relationships between ideology and vote choice for citizens of various types in the 2004 presidential election. Although the choices of independent voters are shown to be largely consistent with the assumptions of spatial voting theory, the decision rules used by partisans differ strongly from what unbiased spatial voting would imply. Although partisans do converge toward the behavior of independents, and hence toward the assumptions of spatial voting theory, as information levels increase, we see that even highly informed partisans show significant differences from what would be implied by unbiased spatial voting theory.

[1]  Kai Arzheimer Angus Campbell/Philip E. Converse/Warren E. Miller/Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter, New York 1960 , 2007 .

[2]  P. Converse The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[3]  D. Chapman Models of the working of a two-party electoral system Part II , 1967 .

[4]  Michael A. Bailey Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency , 2007 .

[5]  D. Apter,et al.  Ideology and discontent , 1966 .

[6]  Christine E. DeMars,et al.  Item Response Theory , 2010, Assessing Measurement Invariance for Applied Research.

[7]  Tim Groseclose,et al.  A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage , 2001 .

[8]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  An experiment on the measurement of political knowledge in surveys , 2008 .

[9]  K. Knight Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter , 1985, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  Donald E. Stokes,et al.  Spatial Models of Party Competition , 1963, American Political Science Review.

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

[12]  David Sanders,et al.  Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study , 2007, Political Analysis.

[13]  J. Jost The end of the end of ideology. , 2006, The American psychologist.

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

[15]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election , 1995 .

[16]  B. Grofman,et al.  A Unified Theory Of Party Competition , 2005 .

[17]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact. , 2019 .

[18]  Morris P. Fiorina,et al.  Retrospective voting in American national elections , 1981 .

[19]  Angus Campbell,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[20]  N. Schofield Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘Valence’ Model of Politics , 2004 .

[21]  Christopher H. Achen Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research , 1992 .

[22]  John Gerring,et al.  Ideology: A Definitional Analysis , 1997 .

[23]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[24]  J. Heckman,et al.  Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators , 1996 .

[25]  Han Dorussen,et al.  Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting , 1999 .

[26]  Rosemary Baker,et al.  Item response theory , 1985 .

[27]  Jeffery J. Mondak Developing Valid Knowledge Scales , 2001 .

[28]  Warren E. Miller,et al.  Constituency Influence in Congress , 1963, American Political Science Review.

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

[30]  Michael Tomz,et al.  Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[31]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators , 1996 .

[32]  S. Jackman BAYESIAN ANALYSIS FOR POLITICAL RESEARCH , 2004 .

[33]  H. Hotelling Stability in Competition , 1929 .

[34]  D. Black On the Rationale of Group Decision-making , 1948, Journal of Political Economy.

[35]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Elements of Reason: Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning , 2000 .

[36]  G. Tabellini,et al.  Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy , 2000 .

[37]  The Political Logic of a Downsian Space , 2005 .

[38]  D. Rucinski The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[39]  Robert C. Luskin,et al.  ''Don't Know'' Means ''Don't Know'': DK Responses and the Public's Level of Political Knowledge , 2011 .

[40]  J. Hampton,et al.  The people's choice. , 2001, Plastic surgical nursing : official journal of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgical Nurses.

[41]  James Adams,et al.  Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting , 1999 .

[42]  P. Converse,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[43]  K. T. Poole,et al.  Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting , 1997 .

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

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

[46]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[47]  James Adams A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively , 2001, British Journal of Political Science.

[48]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples , 2007, Political Analysis.

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

[50]  Matthew Levendusky Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowlege , 2003 .

[51]  Joshua D. Clinton,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[52]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  The Two Faces of Issue Voting , 1980, American Political Science Review.

[53]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models , 2000 .

[54]  T. Carsey,et al.  Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate , 2006 .