Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lswfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T04:46:16.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Jeffrey B. Lewis and
Gary King
Jeffrey B. Lewis
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Gary King
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The directional and proximity models offer dramatically different theories for how voters make decisions and fundamentally divergent views of the supposed microfoundations on which vast bodies of literature in theoretical rational choice and empirical political behavior have been built. We demonstrate here that the empirical tests in the large and growing body of literature on this subject amount to theoretical debates about which statistical assumption is right. The key statistical assumptions have not been empirically tested and, indeed, turn out to be effectively untestable with existing methods and data. Unfortunately, these assumptions are also crucial since changing them leads to different conclusions about voter decision processes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , 1999, pp. 21 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aarts, Kees, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1996a. “Issue Competition in the Netherlands.” Presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Aarts, Kees, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1996b. “Issue Competition and Party Support in the Netherlands.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D. 1977. “A Method of Scaling with Application to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 71(1): 111–130.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, David E., and Cavanagh, Christopher L. 1986. “An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators.” The American Economic Review 76(3): 408–422.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry. 1989. “Factor and Ideal Pont Analysis for Interpersonally Incomparable Data.” Psychometrika 54(2): 181–202.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin J. 1972. “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66(2): 450–458.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay. 1998. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Choice in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” Public Choice 96: 259–270.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M. 1989. ”The Location of American Presidential Candidates: An Empirical Test of a New Spatial Model of Elections.” Mathematical Computational Modeling 12: 461–470.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1994. “A Test of the Predictive Dimensions Model in Spatial Voting Theory.” Public Choice 78: 155–169.Google Scholar
Gilljam, Mikeal. 1997. “The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 5–12.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A., and Wise, David A. 1978. “A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences.” Econometrica 46(2): 403–426.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Enelow, James M. 1984. “The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction.” Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Enelow, James M. 1989. “The Location of American Presidential Candidates: An Empirical Test of a New Spatial Model of Elections.” Mathmatical Computer Modelling 12(4): 461–70.Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39 (March): 41–57.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994a. “The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilization Effects.” Comparative Political Studies. 27: 196–210.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994b. “Political Leadership and Representation in Western European Democracies: A Test of the Three Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 46–74.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Diane Sue. 1984. A Critique of Voting Behavior Research as a Form of Explanation. Ph.D. dissertation. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Kirman, Alan P. 1992. “Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6(2): 117–136.Google Scholar
Kramer, Jorgen, and Rattinger, Hans. 1997. “The Proximity and the Directional Theories of Issue Voting: Comparative Results for the U.S. and Germany.” European Journal of Political Science 32: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1990. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of European Party Systems.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13: 327–354.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. “The Role of Issues in Elections: Voting Decisions in Norway and the United States.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1994. “Ideology and Political Support in Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of Political Science 25: 111–149.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1993a. “Direction and Uncertainty in a Model of Issue Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 5: 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1993b. “Ideology and Candidate Evaluation.” Public Choice 76: 59–78.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. “Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 85: 1107–1131.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1995a. “Issue Competition and Multiparty Politics: Insights from the 1993 Norwegian National Election.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1995b. “Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 25: 453–483.Google 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: 653–690.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 12: 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel. 1992. “An Empirical Test of the Proximity and Directional Models of Spatial Competition: Voting in Norway and Sweden.” Presented at the First Meeting of the of Society for Social Choice and Welfare, Caen, France.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel. 1993. “Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 77: 739–756.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel. 1995. “Discriminating Between the Direction and Proximity Spatial Model of Electoral Competition.” Electoral Studies 14: 273–287.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 1997. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 9: 25–48.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel, Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott. 1996. “Nash Equilibrium Strategies in Directional Models of Two-Candidate Spatial Competition.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Houston TX.Google Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1993. “Directional Versus Proximity: A Second Opinion.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1995. “Directional Versus Proximity Models of Voter-Candidate Issue Linkages in France and the United States,” Typescript. Ann Arbor: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1997. “Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 9 (January): 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, Glenn, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1992. “Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 561–572.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll-Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 373–399.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Listhaug, Ola. 1991. “New Player in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 4: 147–185.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Listhaug, Ola. 1993. “Competing Theories of Issue Voting: Is Discounting the Explanation?” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Shaffer, William. 1994. “A Congruence Model of Issue Voting.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1981. “Structure-Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice 37: 503–519.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1997. “Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 91(4): 865–885.Google Scholar