We extend the directional theory of issue voting from a strictly deterministic model to a model which incorporates voter uncertainty. In the model, each voter has a probability of preferring a given direction of policy with regard to an issue and each party has a probability of pursuing a given policy direction if elected. We examine the implications of the theory for representation and develop the link between directional and proximity theory as models of political change and realignment.
Aldrich, John H.
(1983) `A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism', American Political Science Review77: 974-990.
2.
Aldrich, John H. and Michael D. McGinnis (1987) `A Model of Party Constraints on Optimal Candidate Positions'. Working paper number 30, Duke University Program in International Political Economy.
3.
Budge, Ian
and Dennis J. Farlie (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections. Winchester, MA: Allen and Unwin.
4.
Budge, Ian
, David Robertson and Derek Hearl (1987) Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analysis of Post-War Election Programs in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Calvert, Randall L.
(1985) `Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence', American Journal of Political Science29: 69-95.
6.
Carmines, Edward G.
(1991) `The Logic of Party Alignments', Journal of Theoretical Politics3: 65-80.
7.
Carmines, Edward G.
and James A. Stimson (1989) Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Chappell, Henry W.
and William R. Keech (1986) `Policy Motivation and Party Differences in a Dynamic Spatial Model of Party Competition', American Political Science Review80: 881-899.
9.
Converse, Philip E.
(1964) `The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics', in David E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
10.
Converse, Philip E.
(1970) `Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue', in Edward R. Tufte (ed.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Converse, Philip E.
and Gregory B. Markus (1979) `Plus ça change...: The New CPS Election Study Panel', American Political Science Review73: 32-49.
12.
Coughlin, Peter J.
(1990) `Candidate Uncertainty and Electoral Equilibria', in James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich (eds) Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Davis, Otto A.
, Melvin J. Hinich and Peter C. Ordeshook (1970) `An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process', American Political Science Review64: 426-448.
14.
Downs, Anthony
(1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
15.
Duverger, Maurice
(1964) Political Parties. London: Methuen.
16.
Enelow, James M.
and Melvin J. Hinich (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Gant, Michael M.
(1983) `Citizens' Evaluations of 1980 Presidential Candidates: Influence of Campaign Strategies', American Politics Quarterly11: 327-348.
18.
Grofman, Bernard
(1985) `The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting', Journal of Politics47: 230-237.
19.
Iyengar, Shanto
, Mark D. Peters and Donald R. Kinder (1982) `Experimental Demonstrations of the “Not-So-Minimal” Consequences of TV News Programs', American Political Science Review76: 848-858.
20.
Lipset, Seymour M.
and Stein Rokkan (1967) `Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction', in Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press.
21.
Mauser, Gary A.
(1983) Political Marketing. New York: Praeger.
22.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine
, James W. Prothro, George Rabinowitz and Keith Brown (1988) `Political Evocation and Styles of Candidate Evaluation', Political Behavior10: 117-135.
23.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine
and George Rabinowitz (1987) `The Dynamics of Structural Realignment', American Political Science Review81: 775-796.
24.
Page, Benjamin I.
(1976) `A Theory of Political Ambiguity', American Political Science Review70: 742-752.
25.
Quattrone, George A.
and Amos Tversky (1988) `Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice', American Political Science Review82: 719-736.
26.
Rabinowitz, George
and Stuart Elaine Macdonald (1989) `A Directional Theory of Issue Voting', American Political Science Review83: 93-121.
27.
Riker, William
(1990) `Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial Model', in James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich (eds) Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Robertson, David
(1976) A Theory of Party Competition. New York: Wiley.
29.
Rosenstone, Steven
(1983) Forecasting Presidential Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Schattschneider, E. E.
(1975) The Semisovereign People. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
31.
Schneider, William
(1978) `Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives', in Seymour Martin Lipset (ed.) Emerging Coalitions in American Politics. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
32.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.
(1972) `The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition', American Political Science Review66: 555-568.
33.
Stokes, Donald E.
(1963) `Spatial Models of Party Competition', American Political Science Review57: 368-377.
34.
Sundquist, James L.
(1973) Dynamics of the Party System. Washington: Brookings Institute.
35.
Thomas, George B., Jr.
(1960) Calculus and Analytic Geometry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
Wittman, Donald A.
(1983) `Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories', American Political Science Review77: 142-157.
37.
Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman (1990) `Answering Questions vs. Revealing Preferences: A Simple Theory of the Survey Response'. Working paper, SUNY at Stony Brook Program in Political Psychology.
