On the question of how voters perceive party positions, much of the existing literature has not adequately considered the case of a multidimensional policy space. Since the ideological cues related to each issue differ in a policy space of multiple dimensions, it is possible that each individual favors different dimensional cues. To test this hypothesis, this paper focuses on Japan’s 2012 Lower House election, which took place in a two-dimensional policy space. An analysis of how voters position the three major parties relative to each other reveals that there is actually heterogeneity in the voter perception of the policy space. Further, using a mixed logit model, we find that demographic factors and political attitudes explain this heterogeneity.
AdamsJames FMerrillSamuelIIIGrofmanBernard (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BenoitKennethLaverMichael (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip EMillerWarren EStokesDonald E (1960) The American Voter. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
4.
ConversePhilip E (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In ApterDavid E. (ed) Ideology and Discontent. New York, NY: Free Press, 206–261.
Delli CarpiniMichael XKeeterScott (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
De SioLorenzoWeberTill (2014) Issue Yield: A model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review108(4): 870–885.
8.
De VriesCatherine EHoboltSara B (2012) When Dimensions Collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13(2): 246–268.
9.
DownsAnthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
10.
DuchRaymond MPalmerHarvey DAndersonChristopher J (2000) Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 635–652.
11.
EndoMasahisaJouWilly (2014) How Does Age Affect Perceptions of Parties’ Ideological Locations?Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies30(1): 96–112.
12.
FeldmanStanleyConoverPamela Johnston (1983) Candidates, Issues and Voters: The role of inference in political perception. Journal of Politics45(4): 810–839.
13.
FortunatoDavidStevensonRandolph T (2013) Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The effect of coalition participation. American Journal of Political Science57(2): 459–477.
14.
FreireAndréKivistikKats (2013) Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left–Right Divide. Brazilian Political Science Review7(3): 61–89.
15.
FuchsDieterKlingemannHans-Dieter (1990) The Left–Right Schema. In Kent JenningsMvan DethJan WBarnesSamuel HFuchsDieterHeunksFelix JInglehartRonald FKaaseMaxKlingemannHans-DieterThomassenJacques J A (eds) Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 203–234.
16.
GlasgowGarrett (2001) Mixed Logit Models for Multiparty Elections. Political Analysis9(2): 116–136.
17.
GranbergDonaldBrownThad A (1992) The Perception of Ideological Distance. Western Political Quarterly45(3): 727–750.
18.
HetheringtonMarc J (2001) Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review95(3): 619–632.
19.
HuberJohnInglehartRonald (1995) Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111.
20.
InoguchiTakashi (1987) Japan 1960–1980: Party election pledges. In BudgeIanRobertsonDavidHearlDerek (eds) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 369–387.
21.
JouWilly (2010) The Heuristic Value of the Left–Right Schema in East Asia. International Political Science Review31(3): 366–394.
22.
KabashimaIkuoTakenakaYoshihiko (2012) Ideorogi [Ideology]. Tokyo. Japan: University of Tokyo Press.
KnutsenOddbjørn (1995) Value Orientations, Political Conflicts and Left–Right Identification: A comparative study. European Journal of Political Research28(1): 63–93.
25.
MaglebyDavid BNelsonCandice JWestlyeMark C (2011) The Myth of the Independent Voter Revisited. In SnidermanPaul MHightonBenjamin (eds) Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 238–263.
26.
MidfordPaul (2013) Foreign Policy as an Election Issue. In PekkanenRobertReedSteven RScheinerEthan (eds) Japan Decides 2012: The Japanese General Election. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
NisbettRichard EWilsonTimothy DeCamp (1977) Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review84(3): 231–259.
28.
OkawaChihiro (2011) Jiminto Tai Minshuto (2): 2009 nen seiken kotai ni itaru seijika·yukensha no douko kara [Liberal Democratic Party vs. Democratic Party of Japan (2)]. Kokka Gakkai Zasshi124(3/4): 193–247.
29.
PageBenjamin IBrodyRichard A (1972) Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War issue. American Political Science Review66(3): 979–995.
30.
PooleKeith TRosenthalHoward L (2007) Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31.
R Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 3.1.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, available at: http://www.R-project.org/
32.
RikerWilliam H (1984) The Heresthetics of Constitution-Making: The presidency in 1787, with comments on determinism and rational choice. American Political Science Review78(1): 1–16.
33.
RosenbluthFrances McCallThiesMichael F (2010) Japan Transformed: Political Change and Economic Restructuring. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
RovnyJan (2012) Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
35.
RovnyJan (2013) Where Do Radical Right Parties Stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review5(1): 1–26.
36.
SchoppaLeonard J (2006) Race for the Exits: The Unraveling of Japan’s System of Social Protection. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
SlothuusRunede VreeseClaes H (2010) Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects. Journal of Politics72(3): 630–645.
38.
SwedlowBrendonWyckoMikel L (2009) Value Preferences and Ideological Structuring of Attitudes in American Public Opinion. American Politics Research37(6): 1048–1087.
39.
TaniguchiMasaki (2012) Seito Shiji no Riron [The Theory of Party Support]. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten.
40.
TaniguchiMasakiUenoharaHideakiSakaiyaShiro (2010) Who Ended the LDP’s Reign?Japan Echo37(1): 19–25.
41.
TavitsMargit (2008) Policy Positions, Issue Importance, and Party Competition in New Democracies. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 48–72.
42.
TreierShawnHillygusD Sunshine (2009) The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly73(4): 679–703.
43.
Van der BrugWouter (2010) Structural and Ideological Voting in Age Cohorts. West European Politics33(3): 586–607.
44.
WalczakAgnieszkavan der BrugWouterde VriesCatherine Eunice (2012) Long- and Short-Term Determinants of Party Preferences: Inter-generational differences in Western and East Central Europe. Electoral Studies31(2): 273–284.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
