NONMETRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING METHODS ARE USEFUL FOR SPATIALLY REPRESENTING THE INTER-/RELATIONSHIPS AMOUNG A SET OF DATA OBJECTS. IN THIS THEY ARE SIMILAR TO FACTOR ANALYTIC METHODS. THE ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE METHODS ARE, HOWEVER, SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH FACTOR ANALYSIS AND ARE MORE APPROPRIATE TO CERTAIN POLITICAL DATA.
THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT VIEWS ON HOW CANDIDATE (OR PARTY) ISSUE STRATEGIES INFLUENCE MASS EVALUATIONS. ONE IS THE VIEW UNDERLYING THE CLASSIC SPATIAL MODEL THAT THE PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE VOTER'S OWN ISSUE POSITIONS AND THE POSITIONS TAKEN BY THE CANDIDATES DRIVES THE EVALUATION. THE OTHER VIEW IS DIRECTIONALLY MOTIVATED. IN THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL VOTERS ARE SEEN AS HAVING ONLY DIFFUSE PREFERENCES FOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER ON AN ISSUE, WITH VOTER SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION STIMULATED BY A CANDIDATE TAKING A STRONG STAND IN FAVOR OF A PARTICULAR SIDE. RESEARCHERS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THAT ELECTORATES ARE HETEROGENEOUS. THE AUTHORS CONSIDERS A MODEL IN WHICH EACH OF THESE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS OF ISSUE-BASED VOTING IS CORRECT FOR A PART OF THE ELECTORATE. THEY FIND THAT CANDIDATES TRYING TO OPTIMIZED SUPPORT IN THIS HETEROGENEOUS ENVIRONMENT WILL GENERALLY ADOPT MORE EXTREME POSITIONS THAN THOSE IMPLIED BY PROXIMITY THEORY AND MORE CENTRAL POSITIONS THAN THOSE IMPLIED BY DIRECTIONAL THEORY.
HOW DOES THE EXPRESSED POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF VOTERS INFLUENCE THEIR EVALUATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES? THE CLASSIC ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS PROVIDED BY THE SPATIAL THEORY OF ELECTORAL CHOICE IN WHICH UTILITY FOR A CANDIDATE IS A FUNCTION OF THE PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE VOTER AND CANDIDATE POSITIONS ON THE LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE CONTINUUM. THE AUTHORS HAVE ARGUED ELSEWHERE THAT SPATIAL THEORY, WHILE INTELLECTUALLY APPEALING, IS INADEQUATE AS AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF MASS BEHAVIOR. THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A DIRECTIONAL THEORY OF ISSUE VOTING THAT WE BELIEVE PROVIDES A MORE REALISTIC ACCOUNTING O HOW SPECIFIC POLICY ISSUES INFLUENCE UTILITY FOR A CANDIDATE. DIRECTIONAL THEORY IS BASED ON THE VIEW THAT FOR MOST VOTERS ISSUES ARE UNDERSTOOD AS A DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVE POSITIONS. WHILE IDEOLOGY IS WIDEL UNDERSTOOD AS A CONTINUUM OF POSITIONS, THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL CAN BE APPLIED TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND CANDIDATE EVALUATION. IN THIS PAPER THEY COMPARE THE TOW THEORIES USING NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY DATA FROM 1972 TO 1988. THE RESULTS TEND TO FACTOR THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL OVER THE TRADITIONAL PROXIMITY MODEL. WE CONCLUDE BY BRIEFLY TRACING OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FINDING.
THIS ARTICLE COMPARES TWO SPATIAL MODELS OF PARTY COMPETITION: (A) THE TRADITIONAL PROXIMITY MODEL AND (B) THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL OF VOTER CHOICE. THE ARTICLE FIRST LAYS OUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS IN MULTI-PARTY SYSTEMS. THE TRADITIONAL PROXIMITY MODEL MAKES NO CLEAR PREDICTION ABOUT THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL PARTIES: THE DIRECTIONAL MODEL PREDICTS THAT OPTIMAL PLACEMENT FOR PARTIES WILL BE ALONG THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRCLE AT A MODERATE DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER. BOTH THEORIES HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR OVERTIME STRATEGY AND THE SUCCESS OF NEW POLITICAL PARTIES. TRADITIONAL PROXIMITY THEORY EMPHASIZES THE MOVEMENT TOWARD A LOCATION WITH HIGH DENSITY OF VOTERS, WHILE DIRECTIONAL THEORY EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF A DISTINCT DIRECTIONAL STRATEGY. THE AUTHORS EXAMINE THE NORWEGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM FROM 1969-1985 AND THE SWEDISH SYSTEM FROM 1979-1982 AND FIND THE DIRECTIONAL THEORY MORE STRONGLY SUPPORTED.
The experience of political parties in Norway from 1969 to 1985 and the Swedish system from 1979 to 1982 is used to test proximity and directional theory models of party competition. Directional theory has clear implications for the kind of system that ought to exist in multiparty democracies--of'moderate pluralism.' (SJK)
RECENT WORK IN COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING HAS EMPHASIZED THAT INDIVIDUALS VARY IN THE CRITERIA THEY BRING TO BEAR TO EVALUATE POLITICAL OBJECTS. IN THIS PAPER WE ARGUE THAT INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ARE BUT ONE PIECE OF THE DECISION-MAKING PUZZLE, AND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT. OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO US IS THE IDEA THAT DIFFERENT CANDIDATES EVOKE DIFFERENT EVALUATIVE CRITERIA. USING DATA FROM A 1984 SAMPLE OF UNDERGRADUATES AND THE 1980 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, WE FIND EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL EVOCATION EFFECTS DO EXIST. THIS RESULT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING BOTH THE DECISION CALCULUS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THE COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY OF THE ELECTORATE.
