Cited by 285Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationGame Theory and Voting SystemsOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election

JESSEE, STEPHEN A.·2009·American Political Science Review

Abstract

The theory of spatial voting has played a large role in the development of important results across many areas of political science. Directly testing the foundational assumptions of spatial voting theory, however, has not been possible with existing data. Using a novel survey design, this article obtains estimates of voter ideology on the same scale as candidate positions. The results of this scaling demonstrate that voters possess meaningful ideologies and, furthermore, that these beliefs are strongly related to the sorts of policy proposals considered in Congress. These ideology estimates are then used to uncover the actual relationships between ideology and vote choice for citizens of various types in the 2004 presidential election. Although the choices of independent voters are shown to be largely consistent with the assumptions of spatial voting theory, the decision rules used by partisans differ strongly from what unbiased spatial voting would imply. Although partisans do converge toward the behavior of independents, and hence toward the assumptions of spatial voting theory, as information levels increase, we see that even highly informed partisans show significant differences from what would be implied by unbiased spatial voting theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s000305540909008x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When analyses include voters, they do so at the expense of strong bridging assumptions or only for self-selected population groups.

    “When the analysis also includes voters, it is done at the expense of strong”
  • Ideology estimates for citizens, state legislators, PACs, and political candidates were not previously available.

    “One important reason why the work by Jessee (2009), Shor, Berry, and McCarty (2010), and Bonica (2013b) represents an important contribution to the measurement literature is that ideology estimates for citizens, state legislators, political action committees (PACs), and political candidates were not previously available.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JESSEE, S. A.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
JESSEE, STEPHEN A.
Venue
American Political Science Review
Published
2009-02
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
59-81
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
OpenAlex
W2104670503
Cited by
285
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
FWCI
77.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
voter ideology, 2004 presidential election, vote choice, partisanship, independent voters, information effects, candidate positions, decision rules

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review