IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v71y1977i01p111-130_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Aldrich, John H.
  • McKelvey, Richard D.

Abstract

A method of scaling is proposed to estimate the positions of candidates and voters on a common issue dimension. The scaling model assumes that candidates occupy true positions in an issue space and that individual level perceptual data arise from this in a two step process. The first step consists of a stochastic component, satisfying the standard Gauss Markov assumptions, which reflects true misperception. The second step consists of a linear distortion which is introduced in the survey situation. Estimates of the parameters of the model are developed by applying the least squares criterion, and distributions of the estimates are investigated by Monte Carlo methods.The scaling technique is applied to the seven-point issue scales asked in the 1968 and 1972 SRC survey. The resulting ideal point estimates are related to candidate positions in 1968 to test a simple Downsian voting model.

Suggested Citation

  • Aldrich, John H. & McKelvey, Richard D., 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 111-130, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:71:y:1977:i:01:p:111-130_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400259339/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.
    2. René Lindstädt & Ryan Wielen, 2011. "Timely shirking: time-dependent monitoring and its effects on legislative behavior in the U.S. Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 119-148, July.
    3. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Jiannan Zhou, 2023. "Adjusting for Scale-Use Heterogeneity in Self-Reported Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 31728, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Fabian Gouret, 2021. "Empirical foundation of valence using Aldrich–McKelvey scaling," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 177-226, September.
    5. James Enelow, 1988. "A methodology for testing a new spatial model of elections," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 347-364, December.
    6. Hollibaugh, Gary E. & Klingler, Jonathan & Ramey, Adam, 2015. "Don't Know What You Got: A Bayesian Hierarchical Model of Neuroticism and Nonresponse," IAST Working Papers 15-27, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    7. Samuel Merrill, 1985. "A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 389-403, January.
    8. Christopher Hare & Tzu-Ping Liu & Robert N. Lupton, 2018. "What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure, cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 57-78, July.
    9. Cristina Gualdani & Shruti Sinha, 2023. "Identification in Discrete Choice Models with Imperfect Information," Working Papers 949, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    10. Poole, Keith T. & Lewis, Jeffrey B. & Rosenthal, Howard & Lo, James & Carroll, Royce, 2016. "Recovering a Basic Space from Issue Scales in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(i07).
    11. Peter Bucchianeri & Riley Carney & Ryan Enos & Amy Lakeman & Gabrielle Malina, 2021. "What explains local policy cleavages? Examining the policy preferences of public officials at the municipal level," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2752-2760, November.
    12. Royce Carroll & Hiroki Kubo, 2018. "Polarization and ideological congruence between parties and supporters in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 247-265, July.
    13. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    14. Nicholas Haas & Rebecca B. Morton, 2018. "Saying versus doing: a new donation method for measuring ideal points," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 79-106, July.
    15. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield & Kevin McAlister & Jee Jeon, 2014. "The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 427-463, March.
    16. James Endersby, 1994. "Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 251-265, August.
    17. Elena Jarocinska, 2022. "Discretionary Grants and Distributive Politics: Evidence from Spain," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(4), pages 681-709, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:71:y:1977:i:01:p:111-130_25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.