Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: II

Abstract

Under the assumption that a voter's utility is maximized when s/he chooses the candidate/party that is closest to the voter's own most preferred set of policies, the Downsian proximity model of voter choice has become the standard method for modeling the linkage between the policy preferences of voters and the policy positions of candidates. Alternative spatial models of voter utility and voter choice - based on directional criteria - have been proposed by Matthews and by Rabinowitz and Macdonald. The relative fit of models can best be addressed by nesting seemingly disparate models in a unified statistical framework which embodies proximity, directional and intensity components and which has each of the `pure' models as a special case. Theory suggests the need to distinguish the ability to predict distinct shapes of voter utility functions from the ability to predict voter choice. Using data on the voter utility functions for major candidates for the US presidency during the period 1980-92, we show that the best fit incorporates all three components with intensity significantly more prominent for challengers while the Matthews directional model - which de-emphasizes intensity - is preferred to the Rabinowitz/Macdonald version for incumbents. Differing utility functions for incumbent and challenger imply that the former should seek the center while the latter espouses strong stands. We show that the marked preference for the model obtained by Rabinowitz and Macdonald using mean issue placements of the candidates is greatly reduced with voter-specific candidate placements, even after adjusting for projection. However, when we shift from utility functions to voter choice, we find no significant difference in predictive power between the proximity and directional models.