Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional spatial model of elections places voters and candidates in an ideological space. Empirical analysis of spatial theory uses voter ratings of candidate and ideal positions on policy issue scales. The spatial model can be enhanced by the incorporation of nonpolicy components as well. These nonpolicy issues can be descriptive (age, ethnicity) or affective (honesty, competence). Using responses for a survey conducted during the 1965 Canadian federal election, an empirical evaluation of these nonpolicy issues is made. Voters are not unanimous in perceptions of parties (or candidates) on nonpolicy dimensions. The traditional spatial model can be extended to include individual voter ideal points and perceptions. This enhanced model proves quite successful at predicting vote choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, J. H. & McKelvey, R. D. (1977). A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections.American Political Science Review 71: 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, D. E. (1982). The Consistency of Inconsistency: Party Identification in Federal and Provincial Politics.Canadian Journal of Political Science 15: 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H. D., Jenson, J., LeDuc, L., & Pammett, J. H. (1979).Political Choice in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W. (1990). Multicandidate Spatial Competition. In James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich, eds.,Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1966). The Problems of Party Distances in Models of Voting Change. In M. Kent Jennings and Harmon K. Ziegler, eds.,The Electoral Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P., Meisel, J., Pinard, M., Regenstrief, P., & Schwartz, M. (1966).1965 Canadian National Election Study [computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor].

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O. A. & Hinich, M. J. (1966). A Mathematical Model of Policy Formation in a Democratic Society. In J. L. Bernd, ed.,Mathematical Applications in Political Science II. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1970). An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Political Process.American Political Science Review 64: 426–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endersby, J. W. & Hinich, M. J. (1992). The Stability of Voter Perceptions: A Comparison of Candidate Voter Positions across Time Using the Spatial Theory of Voting.Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16: 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M. (1988). A Methodology for Testing a New Spatial Model of Elections.Quality and Quantity 22: 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M., Endersby, J. W. & Munger, M. C. (1993). In B. J. Grofman, ed.,Information, Participation and Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. W. & Hinich, M. J. (1982). Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Spatial Competition.Journal of Politics 44: 115–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M. & Hinich, M. J. (1984).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M. & Hinich, M. J. (1985). Estimating the Parameters of a Spatial Model of Elections: An Empirical Test Based on the 1980 National Election Study.Political Methodology 11: 249–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M., Hinich, M. J. & Mendell, N. J. (1986). An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Spatial Models of Elections.Journal of Politics 48: 675–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englemann, F. C. & Schwartz, M. A. (1975).Canadian Political Parties. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. (1985). The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.Journal of Politics 47: 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinich, M. J. & Pollard, W. (1981). A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition.American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J. (1975). Party Loyalty in Canada: The Question of Identification.Canadian Journal of Political Science 8: 543–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc, L., Clarke, H. D., Jenson, J., & Pammett, J. H. (1984). Partisan Instability in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study.American Political Science Review 78: 470–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, V. (1969). La Composition des préférences partisanes.Canadian Journal of Political Science 2: 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meisel, J. (1972). Party Images in Canada: A Report on a Work in Progress.Working Papers in Canadian Politics Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. (1984). U.S. Presidential Elections 1968–80: A Spatial Analysis.American Journal of Political Science 28(2): 282–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G. B. (1973)Spatial Models of Electoral Choice: An Empirical Analysis. Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G. B. (1978). On the Nature of Political Issues: Insights from a Spatial Analysis.American Journal of Political Science 70: 804–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusk, J. G. & Weisberg, H. F. (1972). Perceptions of Presidential Candidates: A Midterm Report.Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 388–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (1974). Canadian Voting Behavior. In R. Rose, ed.,Electoral Behavior: Comparative Handbook. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (1977).Politics and Territory. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Forbes, H. D., & Melzer, I. (1974). Party Loyalty and Electoral Volatility: A Study of the Canadian Party System.Canadian Journal of Political Science 7: 268–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial Models of Spatial Competition.American Political Science Review 57: 368–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorburn, H. E. (1972).Party Politics in Canada. 3rd ed. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (1990). Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's ‘Two Political Worlds’.American Journal of Political Science 34: 961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loon, R. (1970). Political Participation in Canada: The 1965 Election.Canadian Journalof Political Science 3: 376–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H. F. & Rusk, J. G. (1970). Dimensions of Candidate Evaluations.American Political Science Review 64: 1167–1185.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Arts and Science, Department of Political Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, 13 Professional Building, 65211, Columbia, MO, USA

    James W. Endersby

Authors
  1. James W. Endersby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Endersby, J.W. Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting. Qual Quant 28, 251–265 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098943

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098943

Keywords

Search

Navigation