Suchergebnisse

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.

In this article, we consider the relationship between voter turnout and voter evaluations of the candidates. Using thermometer data and the 1976 voter validation study, we investigate the magnitude of indifference, alienation, and satisfaction effects. Overall, we find candidate-based abstention in 1976 to be minimal, suggesting that nonvoting in American presidential elections must be understood in terms of factors unrelated to parties' choices of nominees.

The story of a presidential election year is in many ways the story of the actions and interactions of those considered as possible candidates for their nation's highest office. If this is true in the abstract, it certainly was true in the election of 1968. The political headlines of 1968 were captured by those who ran for the nominations of their parties, those who pondered over whether or not to run, those who chose to pull out of the race or were struck down during the campaign, those who raised a third party banner, and those who resisted suggestions to run outside the two-party structure. While 1968 may have been unusual in the extent to which many prospective candidates dominated the political scene, every presidential election is, in its own way, highlighted by those considered for the office of President.The political scientist has shown scholarly interest in the candidates. His interest, however, has been selective in its focus—mainly concentrating on the two actual party nominees and not the larger set of possible presidential candidates. Research in electoral behavior has detailed the popular image of the nominees in terms of the public's reactions to their record and experience, personal qualities, and party affiliation. Furthermore, attitudes toward the nominees have been shown to constitute a major short-term influence on the vote. Yet attitudes toward other candidates have been surveyed only to ascertain the behavior of those people who favored someone other than the ultimate nominees.

Decades of voting behavior studies have found party affiliation, issue stands and ideology, and candidate image to be major factors influencing voter evaluations of candidates. The relative importance of these criteria, however, may depend on the context in which the information processing about the candidate occurs. Specifically, in this study, an experimentally designed survey is used to change the context of the judgment task from an absolute judgment of one candidate to a comparison judgment of two candidates. The results show that subjects changed from a discrete information processing strategy when judging one candidate to a heuristic processing strategy when judging two candidates. The implications for citizen evaluations of political candidates is discussed.

This is the author accepted manuscript of an article published in Politics, Groups, and Identities, the publisher's version of the manuscript can be found here 10.1080/21565503.2019.1629317

Candidate characteristics are often treated as a lump sum that can be pulled apart but ultimately sum together in models of candidate evaluation. The present study asks, first, whether distinctions among traits are useful for models of candidate evaluation. Second, it considers whether the role of substantive trait dimensions in overall evaluation is uniform across candidates or varies by candidate & electoral context. Latent variable structural equation models are used to test the impact of trait dimensions on thermometer ratings of presidential candidates from 1984 to 1996. Results support the separation of traits into substantive content dimensions. Trait dimensions vary in their effect on candidate evaluations depending on the candidate & election year. This is consistent with a model of attitude response based on changing considerations. These results suggest that as candidates & campaigns call attention to different underlying trait dimensions, the bases for overall evaluation vary accordingly. 2 Tables, 1 Appendix, 70 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article argues that in Europe partisanship is best conceptualised in terms of evaluation instead of identification. This follows in part from the fact that the position of partisanship in the funnel of causality differs between parliamentary & presidential systems. Moreover, the conceptualisation proposed (on the basis of the social-psychological notion of attitudes) overcomes various problems associated with the party identification concept. Empirical analyses of four Dutch parliamentary elections indicate that partisanship can then be distinguished meaningfully from vote choice. Although most voters cast a sincere vote, each year discrepancies between party preferences & vote choice were observed. These could be partly accounted for by the impact of candidate evaluations & prospective considerations concerning the future government. Tables, Figures, Appendixes, References. [Copyright 2005 Elsevier Ltd.]