Spatial Models of Electoral and Ideological Evaluation in Latin-American Voters.

• Pablo Biderbost Moyano

  Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca, España.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4086-3658

• Guillermo Boscán Carrasquero

  Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca, España.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4199-2160

• Eduardo Munoz Suarez

  Universidad de Oklahoma. Norman, Estados Unidos de América.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7982-9695

Starting from the idea that electorates are heterogeneous (Morris and Rabinowitz, 1997; Tomz and Van Houweling, 2008; Kropko, 2012), I verified the empirical performance of spatial models of electoral evaluation according to the ideological position of Latin American voters. Specifically, I used mixed formulations to evaluate the classical theory of proximity (Downs, 1957; Davis, Hinich and Ordeshook, 1970) and its alternative, the directional paradigm (Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 1989; Macdonald, Listhaug and Rabinowitz, 1991), in six presidential elections: Brazil 2006 and 2011, Mexico 2006, Chile 2009, Uruguay 2009 and Peru 2011. The results show that voters of the right follow a directional pattern while voters of the left behave according to the scheme of proximity. The data comes from Comparative Study of Electoral System (2023).

Adams, James; Merrill, Samuel y Grofman, Bernard (2005). A unified theory of party competition: a cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Boscán, Guillermo (2016). Voto y competición electoral en América Latina [Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Salamanca]. Gredos USAL. https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/128562/DDPG_Bosc%E1nG_EleccionesAm%E9ricaLatina.pdf?sequence=1

Cho, Sungdai y Endersby, James W (2003). “Issues, the spatial theory of voting, and British general elections: A comparison of proximity and directional models”. Public Choice, 114(3-4): 275-293.

CSES. 2023. Module 3 Full Release [dataset] (Publication no. 10.7804/cses.module3.2013-03-27). from The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org).

Davis, Otto. A; Hinich, Melvin. J. y Ordeshook, Peter. C. (1970). “An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process”. The American Political Science Review, 64 (2): 426-448.

Dow, Jay. K. (1998). “Directional and proximity models of voter choice in recent US presidential elections”. Public Choice, 96(3-4): 259-270.

Iversen, Torben (1994). “Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting”. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1): 45-74.

Kropko, Jonathan (2012). Who’s a Directional Voter and Who’sa Proximity Voter? An Application of Finite Mixture Modeling to Issue Voting in the 2008. American Presidential Election. http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/manuscript.pdf.

Lewis, Jeffrey B. y King, Gary (1999). “No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting”. Political analysis, 8(1): 21-33.

Macdonald, Stuart. E. y Rabinowitz, George (1998). “Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics”. Electoral Studies, 17(3): 281-300.

Macdonald, Stuart. E; Rabinowitz, George y Listhaug, Ola (1995). “Political sophistication and models of issue voting”. British Journal of Political Science, 25(04): 453-483.

Macdonald, Stuart. E., Rabinowitz, G. y Listhaug, Ola (1998). “On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can't be helped” The Journal of Politics, 60(03): 653-690.

Merrill, Samuel (1995). “Discriminating between the directional and proximity spatial models of electoral competition” Electoral Studies, 14(3): 273-287.

Merrill, Samuel y Grofman, Bernard (1997). “Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice: A new synthesis and an illustrative test of competing models” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9: 25-48.

Merrill, Samuel y Grofman, Bernard (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, Irwin L. y Rabinowitz, George (1997). “Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: IV On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters”. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9(1): 75-88.

Rabinowitz, George y Macdonald, Satuart E (1989). “A directional theory of issue voting”. The American Political Science Review, 83(1): 93-121.

Stokes, Donald E (1963). “Spatial models of party competition”. The American Political Science Review, 57(2): 368-377.

Tomz, Michael y Van Houweling, Robert P (2008). “Candidate positioning and voter choice”. American Political Science Review, 102(03): 303-318.

Westholm, Anders (1997). “Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice”. American Political Science Review, 91(4): 865-883.

• PDF (Spanish)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.