IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v114y2003i3-4p275-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues, the Spatial Theory of Voting, and British General Elections: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Sungdai
  • Endersby, James W

Abstract

Competing spatial models of voter choice are compared in the context of parliamentary representatives selected through single-member district, plurality elections where party platforms are emphasized over individual candidates. Respondents of the 1987, 1992, and 1997 British general election surveys rate political parties on a series of issue scales. Ordered logistic regressions of party evaluations under proximity, directional, and mixed models reveal that the classic spatial model and the directional model perform equally well. Differences center on perceptions of the status quo, as voters appear to evaluate the incumbent party (here, the Conservatives) slightly differently than minority parties (Labour and the Liberal Democrats). The proximity model works better for voter evaluations of governing parties while the directional model works well for opposition parties. Copyright 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Sungdai & Endersby, James W, 2003. "Issues, the Spatial Theory of Voting, and British General Elections: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 275-293, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:114:y:2003:i:3-4:p:275-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0048-5829/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Knight & Fan Li & Lindsey Woodworth, 2017. "It’s My Party and I’ll Vote How I Want to: Experimental Evidence of Directional Voting in Two-Candidate Elections," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 660-676, September.
    2. Luigi Maria Solivetti, 2022. "Economic Reformism vs Sociocultural Conservativism: Parties’ Programmes, Voters’ Attitudes and Territorial Features in the UK General Elections 2019," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Wagner Antonio Kamakura, 2016. "Using Voter-choice Modeling to Plan Final Campaigns in Runoff Elections," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 20(6), pages 753-776.
    4. Isaac Duerr & Thomas Knight & Lindsey Woodworth, 2019. "Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 331-349, June.
    5. Do Won Kim, 2020. "Populism Amidst Prosperity: Dimensionality, party competition and voter preference in the era of populism: The case of England, 2010-2017," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 160, European Institute, LSE.
    6. A. Kamakura, Wagner & Afonso Mazzon, Jose & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2006. "Modeling voter choice to predict the final outcome of two-stage elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 689-706.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:114:y:2003:i:3-4:p:275-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.