The debate between which model, directional or proximity, better describes citizens' political behavior engages scholars because the former constitutes a serious challenge to long-standing, Downsian, spatial logic. Despite an engaging series of empirical tests, scholars comparing the two models continue to disagree about which model performs better. Noting experimental methods remain conspicuously absent from methods deployed to date, the author describes an experiment designed to settle key assumption debates and measure subjects' reactions to candidates in contexts in which the models make very different predictions. The author reports results vindicating Downs's assertion that proximity matters and direction does not.
Adams, James, Benjamin G. Bishin, and Jay K. Dow.2004. Representation in congressional campaigns: Evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. Senate elections. Journal of Politics66:348-73.
2.
Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill III. 1999a. Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme?American Journal of Political Science43:765-91.
3.
———. 1999b. Party policy equilibrium for alternative spatial voting models: An application to the Norwegian Storting. European Journal of Political Research36:235-55.
4.
Black, Duncan.1958. The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Blais, Andre, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte.2001. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research40:81-91.
6.
Brettschneider, F., and D. Rolle.1998. Parties as representatives of the people's interests: Models explaining the feeling of being represented. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie50:711.
7.
Cho, Sungdai, and James W. Endersby .2003. Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models. Public Choice114:275-93.
8.
Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich, and Peter Ordeshook.1970. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process . American Political Science Review64:426-48.
9.
Downs, Anthony.1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
10.
Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich.1982. Ideology, issues and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review76:493-501.
11.
———. 1984. The spatial theory of elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Enelow, James, Melvin Hinich, and Nancy Mendell.1986. An empirical evaluation of alternative spatial models of elections. Journal of Politics48:675-93.
13.
Hinich, Melvin, and Michael Munger.1994. Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press .
14.
Hinich, Melvin, and Walker Pollard.1981. A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition . American Journal of Political Science25:323-41.
15.
Hotelling, Harold.1929. Stability in competition. Economic Journal25:323-41.
16.
Johnston, Richard, Patick Fournier, and Richard Jenkins.2000. Party location and party support: Unpacking competing models. Journal of Politics62:1145-60.
17.
Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King.1999. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis8:21-33.
18.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Ola Listhaug, and George Rabinowitz.1991. Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review85:1107-31.
19.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and George Rabinowitz.1993. Ideology and candidate evaluation. Public Choice76:59-78.
20.
———. 1998. Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics. Electoral Studies17 (3): 281-300.
21.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug.1995. Political sophistication and models of issue voting. British Journal of Political Science25 (4): 453-83.
22.
———. 1998. On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped. Journal of Politics60 (3): 653-90.
23.
———. 2004. Bush vs. Gore—Policy issues in the 2000 US presidential election. Tidsskrift For Samfunnsforskings45:185-213.
24.
Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse .1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review73:1055-70.
25.
McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal .2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
Merrill, Samuel, Iii, and Bernard Grofman.1997. Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics9:25-48.
27.
———. 1999. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald .1989. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review83:93-121.
29.
Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook .1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review62:25-42.
30.
———. 1973. An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
Todosijevic, Bojan.2005. Issues and party preferences in Hungary: A comparison of directional and proximity models. Party Politics11:109-26.
32.
van der Brug, Wouter.2001. Perceptions, opinions, and party preferences in the face of a real world event—Chernobyl as a natural experiment in political psychology. Journal of Theoretical Politics13:53-80.
33.
———. 2004. Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies23:209-33.
34.
Westholm, Anders.1997. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review91 (4): 865-83.
35.
———. 2001. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics63:436-81.
