This study analyzes issues used repeatedly by the ANES in studying presidential races, 1972-88. Three conclusions stand out in the findings: (1) on issues offering concentrated benefits and diffuse or deferred costs, there is a correlation between issue position and issue salience; (2) those issues tend to be most salient to strong proponents, and of almost no salience to strong opponents; (3) consequently, the optimal candidate lo cation on such issues is not at the mean preference of the electorate, but between that preference and the preference of the strong proponents of each issue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, Paul, John Aldrich, and David Rohde.1990. Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
Amold, R. Douglas.1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3.
Berelson, Bernard, Paul Lazarsfeld, and William McPhee.1954. Voting. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
4.
Bernstein, Robert.1992. "Determinants of Differences in Feelings Toward Senators Representing the Same State." Western Political Quarterly45: 701-25.
5.
Brams, Steven.1978. The Presidential Election Game. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6.
Buchanan, James, and Gordon Tullock.1965. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor Paperbacks Edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Cox, Gary.1987. "The Uncovered Set and the Core." American Journal of Political Science31: 408-23.
8.
Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich, and Peter Ordeshook.1970. "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process." American Political Science Review64: 428-48.
9.
Dicey, A.V.1914. Law and Public Opinion in England, 2d ed. London: Macmillan Press.
10.
Downs, Anthony.1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
11.
Elliott, Euel.1989. Issues and Elections: Presidential Voting in Contemporary America-A Revisionist View. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
12.
Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich.1984a. "Probabilisitic Voting and the Importance of Centrist Ideologies in Democratic Elections." Journal of Politics46: 459-78.
13.
_ . 1984b. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An IntroductionNew York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Erikson, Robert, and David Romero.1990. "Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote." American Political Science Review84: 1103-26.
15.
Friedman, Milton.1982. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
16.
Hazlitt, Henry.1948. Economics in One Lesson. New York: Pocket Books.
17.
Hotelling, Harold.1929. "Stability in Competition." Economic Journal39: 41-57.
18.
Hutchings, Vincent.1994. "The Dynamics of Representation: How Issue Publics Hold U.S. Senators Accountable." A paper presented to the American Political Science Association meetings in New York.
19.
Jackson, John.1973. "Intensities, Preferences, and Electoral Politics ." Social Science Research2: 231-46.
20.
Kenney, Patrick, and Tom Rice.1988. "Presidential Prenomination Preferences and Candidate Evaluations." American Journal of Political Science82: 1309-19.
21.
Larson, Stephanie.1990. "Information and Learning in a Congressional District: A Social Experiment." American Journal of Political Science34: 1102-18.
22.
Markus, Gregory, and Philip Converse.1979. "A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice ." American Political Science Review53: 1055-70.
23.
Mayhew, David.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
McKelvey, Richard and Peter Ordeshook.1985. "Rational Expectation in Elections: Some Experimental Results Based on a Multidimensional Model." Public Choice44: 61-102.
25.
_ . 1990. "A Decade of Experimental Research on Spatial Models of Elections and Committees." In James Enelow and Melvin Hinich, eds., Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Miller, Warren, and the Center for Political Studies. 1991. American National Election Studies, 1952-1988 Cumulative Data File (computer files). Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
27.
Mueller, Dennis.1989. Public Choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Myerson, Roger.1993. "Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral Systems." American Political Science Review87: 856-69.
29.
Niemi, Richard, and Larry Bartels.1985. "New Measures of Issue Salience." Journal of Politics47: 1212-20.
30.
Page, Beniamin, and Calvin Jones.1979. "Reciprocal Effects and Policy Preferences, Party Loyalty, and the Vote." American Political Science Review73: 1071-90.
31.
Payne, James.1991. The Culture of Spending: Why Congress Lives Beyond our Means. San Francisco: ICS Press .
32.
Plott, Charies.1967. "A Nation of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule." American Economic Review57: 787-806.
33.
Rabinowitz, George, James Prothro, and William Jacoby.1982. "Salience as a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation." Journal of Politics44: 41-63.
34.
Rivers, Douglas.1988. "Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice." American Journal of Political Science32: 737-58.
35.
SAS Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed. (computer program). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
36.
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser.1978. "Attitude Measurement and the Gun Control Paradox ." Public Opinion Quarterly41: 427-38.
