Candidates and Voters: Ideology, Valence, and Representation in U.S Elections

246 Pages·2017·2.298 MB·English

by  Walter J. Stone

CandidatesandVoters
CandidatesandVotersextendsourunderstandingofvoting,elections,
and representation by elaborating a simple theory of voting choice
based on voters’ interest in policy and in the suitability of candidates
to hold elective office (“leadership valence”).Voters’ choices must be
understoodinthecontextofthechoicesbetweenopposingcandidates
theyareofferedonthesetwodimensions.Drawingonextensiveanaly-
sisofU.S.Houseraces,Stoneshowsthatalthoughvoterslacktheinfor-
mationthatmanyanalystsassumetheyneedtofunctioninademocracy,
theyaremostoftenabletochoosethebettercandidateonthepolicyand
valencedimensions.Inaddition,candidates,whentheydecidewhether
and how to run, anticipate the interests that drive voters. The book
shows that elections tend to produce outcomes on policy and leader-
ship valence consistent with voters’ interests,and challenges skeptical
viewsofhowwelltheelectoralprocessworks.
WalterJ.StoneisemeritusProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniver-
sityofCalifornia,Davis.PriortojoiningtheUCDavisfaculty,hewas
ProfessorattheUniversityofColorado,Boulder,andVisitingProfessor
atStanfordUniversity.

Candidates and Voters
Ideology, Valence, and Representation
in US Elections
WALTER J.STONE
UniversityofCalifornia,Davis
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
4843/24,2ndFloor,AnsariRoad,Daryaganj,Delhi-110002,India
79AnsonRoad,#06-04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781316510216
doi:10.1017/9781108225021
(cid:2)C WalterJ.Stone2017
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2017
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabySheridanBooks,Inc.
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
isbn978-1-316-51021-6Hardback
isbn978-1-316-64960-2Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy
ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
To Emma and Riley; Jesse and Kai; Lyle and Juniper.

Contents
ListofFigures pageix
ListofTables xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction 1
1 Candidates,VotingChoice,andElectionOutcomes 14
2 DesignandData:DistrictInformantsandtheStudyof
CongressionalElections 52
3 PolarizationinCongressionalElectionsSince1952 72
4 IdeologicalProximity,Valence,andVoterChoice 84
5 CorrectVotingonProximityandValence 106
6 AnticipatedReactionsandChallengerEntry 122
7 TheProximityandValenceRulesinDistrictVoting 136
8 DistrictIdeologicalRepresentation 147
9 GettingitRight?ValenceandIdeologyinDistrict
Representation 167
Conclusion 185
Appendix:IssuesintheUseofExpertInformants 205
References 211
Index 223
vii

Figures
1.1 SpatialModelofCandidateandVoterIdeologicalPositions
inDistrictj page16
1.2 HypotheticalUtilitiesfromProximityandValenceRules 35
1.3 HypotheticalUtilitiesfromProximityandValencewith
VariableValenceWeights 37
1.4 ImplicationsofLeewayandAlignmentHypothesesfor
CandidateDifferentials 44
3.1 Median-VoterandPartyModelsofDistrictRepresentation 75
3.2 RepresentativebyDistrictIdeologyinSelectedMidterm
Elections 80
3.3 PartialCoefficientsonIncumbencyEstimatingEffectson
IncumbentVoteShare,1952–2010 82
4.1 CandidateandPartyIdentifierIdeologicalDistributions 86
4.2 DistrictandCandidateIdeologicalPositionsforRandom
SubsetofDistricts 86
4.3 DistributionsofCandidateValenceDifferentialsand
IdeologicalCutPoints 88
4.4 ValenceDifferentialsandCandidateValenceScoresfor
RandomSubsetofDistricts 89
4.5 EffectsofProximityandValenceDifferentialsonVoting
ChoicebyPartyIdentification 94
4.6 EffectofProximityDifferentialbyAwarenessofCandidates’
IdeologicalPositions 96
4.7 EffectofProximityDifferentialbyAwarenessofParty
IdeologicalPositions 97
ix