Skip to main content

Ideology and candidate evaluation

Public Choice volume 76, pages 59–78 (1993)Cite this article

Abstract

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. We have argued elsewhere that spatial theory, while intellectually appealing, is inadequate as an empirical model of mass behavior. We have developed a directional theory of issue voting that we believe provides a more realistic accounting of 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 widely understood as a continuum of positions, the directional model can be applied to the relationship between ideology and candidate evaluation. In this paper we compare the two theories using National Election Study data from 1972 to 1988. The results tend to favor the directional model over the traditional proximity model. We conclude by briefly tracing out the implications of this finding.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

References

  • Aldrich, J. (1975).Voting in two U.S. presidential elections: An analysis based on the spatial model of electoral competition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I. and Farlie, D. (1983).Explaining and predicting elections. Winchester, MA: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, R. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: Candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence.American Journal of Political Science 29 (1): 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, P.J. and Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identification.American Journal of Political Science 25 (4): 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems.American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 903–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O., Hinich, M. and Ordeshook, P. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process.American Political Science Review 64 (2): 426–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957).An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. and Hinich, M. (1984).The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinich, M. and Munger, M. (1992). A spatial theory of ideology.Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, J. and Robinson, J. (1978). Ideological identification and the American voter.Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (2): 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition.Economic Journal 39 (March): 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, S.E., Listhaug, O. and Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems.American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1107–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, G. and Converse, P. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73 (4): 1055–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, S., III. (1992a). Empirical tests of the directional and proximity models of spatial competition: Voting in the 1984 American National Election Study. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Merrill, S., III. (1992b). An empirical test of the proximity and directional models of spatial competition: Voting in Norway and Sweden. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Niemi, R. and Jennings, M.K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification.American Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 970–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, L. (1989). Analyzing misinformation: Perceptions of congressional candidates' ideologies.American Journal of Political Science 33 (1): 272–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting.American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithies, A. (1941). Optimum location in spatial competition.Journal of Political Economy 49 (3): 423–429.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC

    Stuart Elaine Macdonald & George Rabinowitz

Authors
  1. Stuart Elaine Macdonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Rabinowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-9210825). We wish to thank the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research for making the election studies available to us.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G. Ideology and candidate evaluation. Public Choice 76, 59–78 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049343

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049343

Keywords

  • Spatial Theory
  • Political Ideology
  • Directional Model
  • National Election
  • Candidate Position