Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation as to why Euclidean distance serves as a reasonably good approximation of reality when it does not incorporate explicity a consideration of the sides of the issue taken by the voter and candidate. The empirical evidence indicates quite clearly that Euclidean distance and side of issue are extremely highly correlated. Two general classes of explanation are offered. First, this powerful association can be seen as a function of the mathematical difficulty of actually being in close proximity to a preferred party while being on the opposite side of an issue on a 7-point scale. Second, even after this mathematical artifact is taken into account, the combined effects of assimilation, contrast, and negativity may bring favored candidates closer to the voter and drive the opposition further away, resulting in a strong correlation of Euclidean distance and side of the issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard G., Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W. (1982). The measurement of public opinion about public policy: A report on some new issue question formats.American Journal of Political Science 26: 391–414.
Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene (1989). Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates “waltz before a blind audience”?American Political Science Review 83: 123–141.
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. (1954).Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brent, E., and Granberg, Donald (1982). Subjective agreement with the presidential candidates of 1976 and 1980.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 393–403.
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I. (1972). Comment: The assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 82: 237–245.
Byrne, Donn, Bond, Michael H., and Diamond, Michael J. (1969). Response to political candidates as a function of attitude similarity-dissimilarity.Human Relations 22: 251–262.
Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley (1982). Projection and the perception of candidates' issue positions.Western Political Quarterly 35: 228–244.
Converse, Philip E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In Edward R. Tufte (ed.),The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Daalder, Hans (1979). The Netherlands. In S. Henig (ed.),Political Parties in the European Community. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Daalder, Hans (1989). The mould of Dutch politics: Themes for comparative inquiry. In Hans Daalder and Galen Irwin (eds.),Politics in the Netherlands: How Much Change? London: Frank Cass and Company Limited.
Daudt, H. (1982). Political parties and government coalitions in the Netherlands since 1945.The Netherlands Journal of Sociology 18: 1–23.
Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. (1984).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Granberg, Donald, and Brown, Thad A. (1992). The perception of ideological distance.Western Political Quarterly 45: 727–750.
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Sören (1986). Political perceptions among voters in Sweden and the U.S.: Analysis of issues with explicit alternatives.Western Political Quarterly 39: 7–28.
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Sören (1988).The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heider, Fritz (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Irwin, Galen A. (1980). The Netherlands. In P. H. Merkl (ed.),West European Party Systems. New York: The Free Press.
Irwin, Galen A., and van Holsteyn, J. J. M. (1989). Decline of the structured model of electoral competition. In Hans Daalder and Galen Irwin (eds.),Politics in the Netherlands: How Much Change? London: Frank Cass and Company Limited.
Jacoby, William G. (1992). Testing the characteristics of the Seven-Point Scales: An Empirical Assessment Based Upon New Survey Questions. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September 3–6.
Kinder, Donald R. (1978). Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 859–871.
Kuhnle, Stein (1988). Norway. In Peter Flora (ed.),Growth to Limits. New York: Walter de Gryyter, pp. 117–196.
Lau, Richard R. (1982). Negativity in political perception.Political Behavior 4: 353–378.
Lau, Richard R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects-in political behavior.American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.
Leonard, Dick (1983). Benelux. In Vernon Bogdanor and David Butler. (eds.),Democracy and Elections: Electoral Systems and Their Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems.American Political Science Review 85: 1107–1131.
Madeley, John T. S. (1977). Scandinavian Christian democracy: Throwback or portent?European Journal of Political Research 5: 267–286.
Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1990). Information and elections: Retrospective voting and rational expectations. In J. A. Ferejohn and J. H. Kuklinski (eds.),Information and Democratic Processes, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Miller, Arthur H., and Miller, Warren E. (1976). Ideology in the 1972 election: Myth or reality—a rejoinder.American Political Science Review 70: 832–849.
Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S. and Brown, Thad A. (1976). A majority party in disarray: Policy polarization in the 1972 election.American Political Science Review 70: 753–778.
Norrander, Barbara (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters.American Journal of Political Science 33: 570–587.
Ottati, V., Fishbein, M., and Middlestadt, S. E. (1988). Determinants of voters' beliefs about the candidates' stands on the issues: The role of evaluative bias heuristics and the candidates' expressed message.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 517–529.
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam War issue.American Political Science Review 66: 979–995.
Powell, Lynda W. (1989). Analyzing misinformation: Perceptions of congressional candidates' ideologies.American Journal of Political Science 33: 272–293.
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine (1989). A directional theory of issue voting.American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.
Richardson, Bradley M. (1991). European party loyalties revisited.American Political Science Review 85: 751–775.
Shaffer, William R. (1991). Interparty spatial relationships in Norwegian storting roll call votes.Scandinavian Political Studies. 14: 59–83.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Hovland, Carl (1961).Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, C. (1969).Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Sniderman, Paul M., Glaser, James M., and Griffin, Robert (1990). Information and electoral choice. In J. A. Ferejohn and J. H. Kuklinski (eds.),Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Strøm, Kaare, and Leipart, Jørn (1990). Ideology, strategy and party competition in postwar Norway.”European Journal of Political Research 17: 263–288.
Svåsand, Lars (1988).The Norwegian Conservative, Christian and Progressive Parties: Uneasy Neighbours in Non-Socialist Politics. Bergen: Institute of Comparative Politics.
Thomassen, Jacques (1976). Party identification as a cross-national concept: Its meaning in the Netherlands. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, and D. Fairlie (eds.),Party Identification and Beyond. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
van der Eijk, C., and Niemoller, B. (1985). The Netherlands. In I. Crewe and D. Denver (eds.),Electoral Change in Western Democracies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaffer, W.R. Distant allies and proximate enemies in issue voting: Myth or reality?. Polit Behav 18, 187–218 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498790
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498790
Keywords
- Strong Correlation
- Empirical Evidence
- Combine Effect
- Euclidean Distance
- General Classis