Following spatial choice theory and MAP methodology, we employ the data drawn from recent
nationwide public opinion surveys to probe the latent political choice space in American
political competition. Our analyses demonstrate that, in addition to the traditional
left–right ideology continuum, there is a second distinct dimension in American political
choice space. More importantly, the results from our regression analyses suggest that the
second dimension seems to be driven by a cleavage among different reform prospects,
ranging from low-politics reformism, to politics-as-usual approach, to high-politics style
of change.
AbramowitzAI (2010) The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens,
Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzAISaundersKL (2006) Exploring the bases of partisanship in
the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political
Research Quarterly59: 175–187.
3.
AdamsJMerrillSSimasENStoneWS (2011) When candidates value good character: A
spatial model with applications to congressional elections.
Journal of Politics73(1): 17–30.
4.
AldrichJH (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of
Party Politics in America. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
5.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMStewartC (2001) Candidate positioning in U.S. House
elections. American Journal of Political Science45: 136–159.
6.
BafumiJShapiroRY (2009) A new partisan voter.
Journal of Politics71(1): 1–24
7.
BeckmannMNMcGannAJ (2008) Navigating the legislative divide:
Polarization, presidents, and policymaking in the US. Journal of
Theoretical Politics202(2): 201–220.
8.
BinderSA (2003) Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of
Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
9.
BradyHE (1989) Factor and ideal point analysis for
interpersonally incomparable data. Psychometrika54: 181–202.
10.
CahoonLHinichMJ (1976) A method for locating targets using
range only. IEEE Transactions on Information TheoryIT-22: 217–225.
11.
CahoonLHinichMJOrdeshookPC (1978) A statistical multidimensional scaling
method based on the spatial theory of voting. In: WangPC (ed) Graphical Representation of Multivariate Data.
New York: Academic
Press, pp. 243–278.
12.
CarkogluAHinichMJ (2006) A spatial analysis of Turkish party
preferences. Electoral Studies25: 369–392.
13.
ChittickWOBillingsleyKRTravisR (1995) A three-dimensional model of American
foreign policy beliefs. International Studies Quarterly39: 313–331.
14.
ClaassenRLHightonB (2009) Policy polarization among party elites
and the significance of political awareness in the mass public.
Political Research Quarterly62: 538–551.
15.
DietzTSternPCGuagnanoGA (1998) Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and
Behavior30: 450–471.
16.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy.
New York: Harper &
Row.
17.
DunlapRE (1975) The impact of political orientation on
environmental attitudes and actions. Environment and
Behavior7: 428–454.
18.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An
Introduction. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
19.
EriksonRSTedinKL (2003) American Public Opinion. 6th
ed.New York, NY:
Longman.
20.
FiorinaMPAbramsSJ (2008) Political polarization in the American
public. Annual Review of Political Science11: 563–588.
21.
HetheringtonMJWeilerJD (2009) Authoritarianism and Polarization in American
Politics. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
22.
HinichMJ (2005) A new statistical multidimensional
unfolding method. Communication in Statistics34: 2299–2310.
23.
HinichMJ (2006) The future of analytical
politics. In: WeingastBWittmanD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, pp. 996–1002.
24.
HinichMJMungerMC (1994) Ideology and the Theory of Political
Choice. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
25.
HinichMJShawDR (2006) Uncovering the reform dimension in US
presidential elections, 1992–2004. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,
Chicago, IL. Available at: http://web.austin.utexas.edu/hinich/files/Politics/MWPSA.pdf;
acessed April 20–23, 2006
26.
HinichMJShawDRHuangT (2010) Insiders, outsiders, and voters in the
2008 US presidential election. Presidential Studies
Quarterly40: 264–285.
27.
JacobyWG (1991) Ideological identification and issue
attitudes. American Journal of Political Science35: 178–205.
28.
JonesDR (2001) Party polarization and legislative
gridlock. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 125–141.
29.
JostJT (2006) The end of the end of
ideology. American Psychologist61: 651–670.
30.
LaymanGCCarseyTMHorowitzJM (2006) Party polarization in American
politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual
Review of Political Science (9):
93–110.
31.
LondreganJ (2000) Legislative Institutions and Ideology in
Chile’s Democratic Transition. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press
32.
NivolaPSBradyDW (2006) Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and
Causes of America’s Polarized Politics. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
33.
PooleKT (1998) Recovering a basic space from a set of
issue scales. American Journal of Political Science42: 954–993.
34.
PrattoFStallworthLMSidaniusJ (1997) The gender gap: Differences in
political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British
Journal of Social Psychology36: 49–68.
35.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue
voting. American Political Science Review83: 93–121.
36.
SteeperFT (1995) This swing is different: Analysis of
1994 election exit polls. The Cook Political Report,
8February.
37.
StimsonJA (1999) Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and
Swings. 2nd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
38.
StimsonJA (2004) Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes
American Politics. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
UslanerEM (1993) The Decline of Comity in Congress.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
41.
UslanerEM (2000) Is the Senate more civil than the
House? In: LoomisB (ed) Esteemed Colleagues: Civility and Deliberation in the
Senate. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, pp.
32–56.
42.
Van LiereKDDunlapRE (1981) Environmental concern: Does it make a
difference how it’s measured?Environment and Behavior13: 651–676.
43.
WoodBDVedlitzA (2007) Issue definition, information
processing and the politics of global warming. American Journal
of Political Science51: 552–568.
