The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial Models of Party Competition
Abstract
The use of spatial ideas to interpret party competition is a universal phenomenon of modern politics. Such ideas are the common coin of political journalists and have extraordinary influence in the thought of political activists. Especially widespread is the conception of a liberal-conservative dimension on which parties maneuver for the support of a public that is itself distributed from left to right. This conception goes back at least to French revolutionary times and has recently gained new interest for an academic audience through its ingenious formalization by Downs and others. However, most spatial interpretations of party competition have a very poor fit with the evidence about how large-scale electorates and political leaders actually respond to politics. Indeed, the findings on this point are clear enough so that spatial ideas about party competition ought to be modified by empirical observation. I will review here evidence that the “space” in which American parties contend for electoral support is very unlike a single ideological dimension, and I will offer some suggestions toward revision of the prevailing spatial model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An economic theory of political action in a democracy
Downs, A. (1957) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/257897 · Cited by 3,300
Cited by
Dalton, R. J. (2004) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268436.001.0001 · Cited by 1,372
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barbera, P. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2108098 · Cited by 983
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L., & Glasgow, G. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00199.x · Cited by 709
On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’
Wlezien, C. (2005) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.009 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Authors
- Stokes, D. E.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1963-06
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 368-377
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2017184608
- Cited by
- 1,964
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spatial Models of Party Competition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1952828
- The paper
- Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952828
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.