Suchergebnisse

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.

There are three principal grounds for comparing directional & proximity theory -- their predictions of evaluation, choice, & party system structure. When the theories have been compared on each of these criteria, the results have favored directional theory. Westholm's defense of the proximity model relies on replacing the formal models he purports to be testing with analytic models that incorporate subjective party placements. Subjective placements violate the assumptions of both theories & are known to have a proximity bias. Further, Westholm focuses exclusively on predictions of choice, rejecting other grounds for comparing the theories. In our response, we show that the test Westholm devises does not put proximity theory at risk. Even in an entirely directional world, a world in which proximity theory is irrelevant to behavior, Westholm's test will still favor the proximity model. The fact that Westholm pays homage to the idea of falsifiability, & yet produces only this evidence in support of the proximity model, testifies to the power of directional theory for explaining this Norwegian case, & to the gulf between rhetoric & reality in Westholm's defense. 1 Table, 1 Figure, 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

The Netherlands represents the prototypic case of a consociational democracy; in addition, the Dutch system has an extremely low threshold for obtaining representation in the legislature, making it open to challengers of any political persuasion. This article has two explicit goals: to compare two models of issue-based party choice, the directional and proximity models; and to understand the changing nature of electoral competition in the Netherlands. The article's analytic focus is the elections of 1971, 1986, and 1994. These elections, the only ones for which appropriate data are available for testing the issue theories, represent important points in the historical sequence. Tests of the alternate issue voting models generally favor directional over proximity theory. The broader analysis suggests substantial change in Dutch politics, away from the tight structuring of subcultural allegiances to a more politically homogeneous culture in which party strength appears rather fluid.

Does political sophistication influence the way in which voters use issues in evaluating parties and candidates? We consider two models of mass-elite linkage: the traditional spatial model, which conceives of issues as continua of policy options, and the directional model, which conceives of issues as simple dichotomies. The traditional model is more cognitively demanding and is the implicit model of journalists and political elites. We would expect, therefore, that better educated and more politically involved voters would rely on it, while less sophisticated voters would follow the directional paradigm. We investigate this hypothesis with survey data from the 1988 presidential election in the United States and the 1989 parliamentary election in Norway. The results show that at all levels of sophistication and in both countries, voters generally follow the directional model.