An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Spatial Models of Elections

Abstract

In Enelow and Hinich (1982, 1984a), the spatial theory of elections is augmented to incorporate nonspatial candidate characteristics in the voter's candidate evaluations. In this extension, nonpolicy characteristics are represented by an additive term independent of the policy portion of the voter's evaluation. In Grofman (1985), an interactive voting model is introduced, in which nonpolicy characteristics affect the voter's evaluation of the candidate only through the candidate's policy positions. An empirical question is raised by these two contrasting approaches: do nonpolicy candidate qualities affect voter choice independently of candidate policies, interactively with candidate policies, or through both means? This paper is designed to answer that question. An extended form of the Enelow-Hinich model is specified with both main and interaction terms. The model is then used to predict voter choice in the 1972, 1976, and 1980 presidential elections. Statistical evidence for the existence of interaction effects is present in each election. But the importance of these effects for predicting voter choice is statistically nonsignificant. The simple additive Enelow-Hinich model is unsurpassed by an expanded form of the model with interaction effects or by Grofman's interactive model which excludes main effects, and is usually better than two simpler models that exclude either policy or nonpolicy variables.