We investigate the role of issues in the 1993 Norwegian election. We are interested in comparing two spatial models of issue evaluation, the directional model and the familiar proximity model. The directional model implies that voters ask two questions of parties: Are you on my side? and Can I trust you to be responsible? This contrasts with the classic proximity question: How close are your positions to mine?
Prior analysis of Norwegian voters has favored the directional model. The empirical story in 1993, however, features a traditional centrist party, the agrarian Center Party, running quite strongly, which on the surface, at least, challenges the directional model, and presents an interesting case to observe. We also extend our analysis to examine more generally the impact of issues on the election. This unrestricted analysis adds texture to our understanding of the role of issues, while its results dovetail with the analysis of the specific models. When people evaluated parties on the basis of issues in Norway in 1993, the directional model describes that dynamic well.
None None Directional Model American Political Science Review Labor Party Directional Theory
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Aardal, B. and Valen, H. (1995). Konflikt og opinion. Oslo: NKS-forlaget.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34: 903–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J. and Ordeshook, P. C. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64: 426–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, J. M. and Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. (1985). The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics 47: 230–237.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. and Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93: 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, M. J. and Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, T. (1994). Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. and Schofield, G. (1990). Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1991). Economics and politics: The calculus of support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Listhaug, O., Macdonald, S. E. and Rabinowitz, G. (1994). Ideology and party support in comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research 25: 111–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. and Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 83: 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M. and Steenbergen, M. R. with Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, S. E., Listhaug, O. and Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review 85: 1107–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, S. E. and Rabinowitz, G. (1993). Direction and uncertainty in a model of issue voting. Journal of Theoretical Politics 5: 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, S., III. (1995). Discriminating between the direction and proximity spatial models of electoral competition. Electoral Studies 14: 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, S., III and Grofman, B. (1997). Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice: A new synthesis and an illustrative test of competing models. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, R. G. and Bartels, L. M. (1985). New measures of issue salience: An evaluation. Journal of Politics 47: 1212–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. American Political Science Review 60: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar