Pseudo-classical Nonseparability and Mass Politics in Two-Party Systems

  • Christopher Zorn
  • Charles E. Smith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7052)

Abstract

We expand the substantive terrain of QI’s reach by illuminating a body of political theory that to date has been elaborated in strictly classical language and formalisms but has complex features that seem to merit generalizations of the problem outside the confines of classicality. The line of research, initiated by Fiorina in the 1980s, seeks to understand the origins and nature of party governance in two-party political systems wherein voters cast partisan ballots in two contests, one that determines partisan control of the executive branch and another that determines party control of a legislature. We describe how research in this area evolved in the last two decades in directions that bring it now to the point where further elaboration and study seem natural in the more general formalistic and philosophical environments embraced in QI research. In the process, we find evidence that a restriction of a classical model that has animated work in the field appears violated in a form that leads one naturally to embrace the superposition principle. We then connect classical distinctions between separable and nonseparable preferences that are common in political science to their quantum and quantum-like counterparts in the QI literature, finding special affinity for a recently-introduced understanding of the distinction that provides a passageway into the boundary between fully quantum and fully classical views of the distinction and thereby provides new leverage on existing work germane to the theory.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fiorina, M.P.: Divided Government, 2nd edn. MacMillan, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Downs, A.: An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper and Row, New York (1957)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Converse, P.E.: The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In: Apter, D. (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. Free Press, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrocik, J., Doherty, J.: The Road to Divided Government: Paved without Intention. In: Galderisi, P.F., Herzberg, R.Q., McNamara, P. (eds.) Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carsey, T., Layman, G.: Policy Balancing and Preferences for Party Control of Government. Political Research Quarterly 57, 541–550 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith Jr., C.E., Brown, R.D., Bruce, J.M., Marvin Overby, L.: Party Balancing and Voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election. American Journal of Political Science 43, 737–764 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dean, L., Niou, E.M.S.: Elections in Double-Member Districts with Nonseparable Preferences. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10, 89–110 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enelow, J.M., Hinich, M.J.: The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinich, M.J., Munger, M.C.: Analytical Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, O., Hinich, M.: On the Power and Importance of the Mean Preference in a Mathematical Model of Democratic Choice. Public Choice 5, 59–72 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorman, W.: The Structure of Utility Functions. Review of Economic Studies 32, 369–390 (1968)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, T.: Collective Choice, Separation of Issues and Vote Trading. American Political Science Review 71, 999–1010 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lacy, D.: A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses. American Journal of Political Science 45, 239–258 (2001a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lacy, D.: Nonseparable Preferences, Measurement Error, and Unstable Survey Responses. Political Analysis 9, 95–115 (2001b)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W., Stokes, D.: The American Voter. Wiley, New York (1960)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aerts, D., Aerts, S., Broeckaert, J., Gabora, L.: The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld. Foundations of Physics 30, 1378–1414 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aerts, D., Gabora, L.: A Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations II: A Hilbert Space Representation. Kybernetes 34, 176–205 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruza, P., Iqbal, A., Kitto, K.: The Role of Non-Factorizability in Determining ‘Pseudo-Classical’ Non-Separability. In: Quantum Informantics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes: Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium (2010), pp. 26–31 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gabora, L., Aerts, D.: A Model of the Emergence and Evolution of Integrated Worldviews. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 434–451 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruza, P.D., Kitto, K., Ramm, B., Sitbon, L., Song, D., Blomberg, S.: Quantum-like Non-Separability of Concept Combinations, Emergent Associates and Abduction. Logic Journal of the IGPL (2011) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Born, M.: Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. Zeitschrift für Physik 37, 863–867 (1926)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Busemeyer, J., Pothos, E., Franco, R., Trueblood, J.: A Quantum Theoretical Explanation for Probability Judgment ‘Errors’. Psychological Review (2011) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trueblood, J., Busemeyer, J.: A Quantum Probability Explanation for Order Effects on Inference. Cognitive Science (2011) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weisberg, H.: A Multidimensional Conception of Party Identification. Political Behavior 2, 33–60 (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Zorn
    • 1
  • Charles E. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political SciencePennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MississippiOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations