Although it has been long established that ideology influences the decisions of American voters, scholars have begun more recently to delineate which voters under what conditions will vote ideologically. Although these studies have been illuminating, most analyses have failed to account for one critical contextual factor: candidate ideological divergence. Using a random-effects probit model and data from the 1988 to 1992 American Senate Election Studies, I show that the ideological divergence among Senate candidates conditions the influence of ideology on vote choice, at least among the more politically knowledgeable segment of the population. This reinforces and extends the findings of Wright and Berkman that ideologically polarized candidates produce ideological voters.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Segal, J. A. (1992). Senate elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and elections.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr., & Stewart, C., III. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136-159.
4.
Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
5.
Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2001). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96, 127-140.
6.
Coleman, J. J., & Manna, P. (2000). Congressional campaign spending and the quality of democracy. Journal of Politics, 62, 757-789.
7.
Conver, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 811-839.
8.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Erikson, R. S., & Wright, G. C. (2001). Voters, issues and candidates in congressional elections. In L. Dodd & B. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th ed., pp. 67-96). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Fenno, R. F., Jr. (2000). Congress at the grassroots: Representational change in the South, 1970-1998. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
11.
Fiorina, M. P. (with Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C.). (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.
12.
Franklin, C. (1991). Eschewing obfuscation? Campaigns and the perception of U.S. Senate incumbents. American Political Science Review, 85, 1192-1214.
13.
Gomez, B., & Wilson, M. J. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 899-914.
14.
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Gronke, P. (2000). The electorate, the campaign, and the office: A unified approach to House and Senate elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
Grynaviski, J. D. (2005). Methodological lessons for pooled data sets. Chicago: University of Chicago.
17.
Jacobson, G. C. (2004). The politics of congressional elections (5th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
18.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1997). A model of candidate evaluations in Senate elections: The impact of campaign intensity. Journal of Politics, 59, 1173-1205.
19.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (2001). United States Senate campaign strategies and media analysis, 1988-1992 [Computer file, ICPSR version]. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
21.
Kenney, P. J. (1993). An examination of how voters form impressions of candidate’s issue positions during the nomination campaign. Political Behavior, 15, 265-288.
22.
King, D. (2001). Congress, polarization, and fidelity to the median voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
23.
Koch, J. W. (1998). Electoral competitiveness and the voting decision: Evidence from the pooled Senate Election Study. Political Behavior, 20, 295-311.
24.
Koch, J. W. (2003). Being certain versus being right: Citizen certainty and accuracy of House candidate’s ideological orientations. Political Behavior, 25, 221-246.
25.
Krasno, J. S. (1994). Challengers, competition, and reelection: Comparing Senate and House elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Lavine, H., & Gschwend, T. (in press). Issues, party, and character: The moderating role of ideological thinking on candidate evaluations. British Journal of Political Science.
27.
Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 856-899.
28.
Miller, W. E., Kinder, D. R., Rosenstone, S. J., & National Election Studies. (2005). American national election study: Pooled Senate Election Study, 1988, 1990, 1992 [Computer file, 3rd ICPSR version]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
29.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). GLLAMM manual (Working Paper 160). Berkeley: University of California, Division of Biostatistics.
30.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2005). Maximum-likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. Journal of Econometrics, 128, 301-323.
31.
Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93-121.
32.
Rahn, W. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
33.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
35.
Steenbergen, M., & Jones, B. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218-237.
36.
Westlye, M. C. (1991). Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
Wright, G. C., Jr., & Berkman, M. B. (1986). Candidates and policy in United States Senate elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 567-588.
38.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
