Title

Information and Ideological Structure in Spatial Voting

DOI

10.29654/TJD.201107.0001

Authors

Tse-Min Lin

Key Words

Information ; uncertainty ; spatial theory of voting ; median voter theorem ; minimum-sum point ; heteroskedastic probit ; information shortcuts ; political knowledge ; political deliberation ; political sophistication ; political activism ; political activists ; Taiwan 2004 presidential election ; Chen Shui-bian ; Lien Chan ; political cleavage ; national identity ; Pan-Green ; Pan-Blue ; TEDS

PublicationName

Taiwan Journal of Democracy

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

7卷1期(2011 / 07 / 01)

Page #

1 - 24

Content Language

英文

English Abstract

This article aims at unifying the theory of spatial voting and the theory that is variously called conceptualization, information, or sophistication. Following Downs's early insights on uncertainty as well as recent developments in both literatures, I argue that it is of critical importance that spatial voting models explicitly incorporate information effects. For this purpose, I develop a heteroskedastic probit model that allows for the specification of information heterogeneity. This model is applied to the Taiwan Election and Democratization Study's 2004 post-presidential election survey data. In 2004, Taiwan’s political landscape was dominantly defined by the Green vs. Blue ideological cleavage, and the candidates were perceived as taking divergent positions. This article investigates the effects of information and activism on the spatial structure and their implications on candidates' strategies. My findings confirm the existence of these effects on voter uncertainty in the framework of spatial analysis.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. Lin, Tse-min,Chu, Yun-han(2008).The Structure of Taiwan's Political Cleavages toward the 2004 Presidential Election: A Spatial Analysis.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,4(2),133-154.
    連結:
  2. Adams, James(1997).Spatial Models of Candidate Competition and the 1988 French Presidential Election: Are Presidential Candidates Vote-Maximizers?.Journal of Politics,62(3),729-756.
  3. Aldrich, John H.(1983).A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.American Political Science Review,77(3),974-990.
  4. Aldrich, John H.(1983).A Spatial Model with Party Activists: Implications for Electoral Dynamics.Public Choice,41(1),63-100.
  5. Althaus, Scott L.(1998).Information Effects in Collective Preferences.American Political Science Review,92(3),545-558.
  6. Apter, David(ed.)(1964).Ideology and Discontent.New York:Basic Books.
  7. Bartels, Larry M.(1996).Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.American Journal of Political Science,40(1),194-230.
  8. Black, Duncan(1958).The Theory of Committees and Elections.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
  9. Cahoon, Lawrence S.(1975).Carnegie Mellon University.
  10. Cahoon, Lawrence S.,Hinich, Melvin J.(1976).A Method for Locating Targets Using Range Only.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,22(2),217-225.
  11. Carpini, Michael X. Delli,Keeter, Scott(1996).What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
  12. Dow, Jay(1998).A Spatial Analysis of Candidate Competition in Dual Member Districts: The 1989 Chilean Senatorial Elections.Public Choice,97(3),451-474.
  13. Downs, Anthony(1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York:Harper & Row.
  14. Enelow, James M.,Hinich, Melvin J.(1984).The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
  15. Enelow, James M.,Hinich, Melvin J.(1989).A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.Public Choice,61(2),101-113.
  16. Grofman, Bernard,Norrander, Barbara(1990).Efficient Use of Reference Cues in a Single Dimension.Public Choice,64(3),213-227.
  17. Harvey, A. C.(1976).Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity.Econometrica,44(3),461-465.
  18. Hinich, Melvin J.(1983).Comment on the Aldrich Paper.Public Choice,41(1),101-102.
  19. Hinich, Melvin J.(1977).Equilibrium in Spatial Voting: The Median Voter Result Is an Artifact.Journal of Economic Theory,16(2),208-219.
  20. Hinich, Melvin J.,Munger, Michael C.(1994).Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
  21. Jacoby, William G.(1991).Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.American Journal of Political Science,35(1),178-205.
  22. Jacoby, William G.(1986).Levels of Conceptualization Reliance on the Liberal-Conservative Continuum.Journal of Politics,48(2),423-431.
  23. Jacoby, William G.(1988).The Impact of Party Identification on Issue Attitudes.American Journal of Political Science,32(3),643-661.
  24. Jacoby, William G.(1995).The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate.American Journal of Political Science,39(2),314-335.
  25. Lin, Tse-min,Chu, Yun-han,Hinich, Melvin J.(1996).Conflict Displacement and Regime Transition in Taiwan.World Politics,48(4),453-481.
  26. Lin, Tse-min,Enelow, James M.,Dorussen, Han(1999).Equilibrium in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting.Public Choice,98(1-2),59-82.
  27. Luskin, Robert C.,Fishkin, James S.,Jowell, Roger(2002).Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in the U.K..British Journal of Political Science,32(3),455-487.
  28. Maddala, G. S.(1983).Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
  29. McKelvey, Richard D.,Ordeshook, Peter C.(1985).Elections with Limited Information: A Fulfilled Expectations Model Using Contemporaneous Poll and Endorsement Data as Information Sources.Journal of Economic Theory,36(1),55-85.
  30. Miller, Gary,Schofield, Norman(2003).Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.American Political Science Review,97(2),245-260.
  31. Nie, Norman H.,Verba, Sidney,Patrocik, John R.(1976).The Changing American Voter.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
  32. Ordeshook, Peter(ed.)(1978).Game Theory and Political Science.New York:New York University Press.
  33. Quinn, Kevin M.,Martin, Andrew D.,Whitford, Andrew B.(1999).Voter Choice in Multi-Party Democracies: A Test of Competing Theories and Models.American Journal of Political Science,43(4),1231-1247.
  34. Schofield, Norman(2003).Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model.Journal of Theoretical Politics,15(4),371-383.
  35. Schofield, Norman,Martin, Andrew D.,Quinn, Kevin M.,Whitford, Andrew B.(1998).Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit.Public Choice,97(2),252-293.
  36. Schofield, Norman,Miller, Gary,Martin, Andrew(2003).Critical Elections and Political Realignments in the USA: 1860-2000.Political Studies,51(2),217-240.
  37. Wu, Yu-shan(2004).Taiwanese Nationalism and Its Implications: Testing the Worst-Case Scenario.Asian Survey,44(4),614-625.
  38. Zaller, John R.(1992).The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.New York:Cambridge University Press.
Times Cited
  1. 劉昶志(2010)。位置隱私權上的新混合式隱匿系統。臺北科技大學資訊工程系研究所學位論文。2010。1-45。