将选民偏好与不同来源的政党立场估计相结合,研究投票行为和代表性

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102734
Anna-Sophie Kurella , Milena Rapp
{"title":"将选民偏好与不同来源的政党立场估计相结合,研究投票行为和代表性","authors":"Anna-Sophie Kurella ,&nbsp;Milena Rapp","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Researchers interested in policy voting and substantive representation face the challenge to combine party positions with voter preference data on a common scale. One solution is to rely on voters’ perceptions of parties’ policy positions, as reported in surveys. However, this kind of data is often only available for the common left–right dimension, but not for more concrete policy scales, and it suffers from bias. We first discuss how to free perceptual data from bias by relying on a Bayesian version of the Aldrich–McKelvey rescaling technique. Then we discuss two prominent alternative sources of party position estimates: expert survey positions, and positions based on the CMP coding scheme of the manifesto project. While both types of party position estimates are considered to be of good quality, it is unclear how they fit into voter preference scales. This paper presents a simple rescaling technique that improves the matching.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combining voter preferences with party position estimates from different sources for studying voting behavior and representation\",\"authors\":\"Anna-Sophie Kurella ,&nbsp;Milena Rapp\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Researchers interested in policy voting and substantive representation face the challenge to combine party positions with voter preference data on a common scale. One solution is to rely on voters’ perceptions of parties’ policy positions, as reported in surveys. However, this kind of data is often only available for the common left–right dimension, but not for more concrete policy scales, and it suffers from bias. We first discuss how to free perceptual data from bias by relying on a Bayesian version of the Aldrich–McKelvey rescaling technique. Then we discuss two prominent alternative sources of party position estimates: expert survey positions, and positions based on the CMP coding scheme of the manifesto project. While both types of party position estimates are considered to be of good quality, it is unclear how they fit into voter preference scales. This paper presents a simple rescaling technique that improves the matching.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001567\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001567","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对政策投票和实质性代表权感兴趣的研究人员面临着一个挑战,即如何将政党立场与选民偏好数据结合在一个共同的尺度上。一种解决方案是依靠调查报告中选民对政党政策立场的看法。然而,这类数据往往只能用于共同的左右维度,而无法用于更具体的政策尺度,而且存在偏差。我们首先讨论了如何依靠贝叶斯版本的 Aldrich-McKelvey 重定标技术使感知数据摆脱偏差。然后,我们讨论政党立场估计的两个重要替代来源:专家调查立场和基于宣言项目 CMP 编码方案的立场。虽然这两类政党立场估计都被认为是高质量的,但它们如何与选民偏好量表相匹配却并不清楚。本文介绍了一种简单的重新缩放技术,可改善匹配效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Combining voter preferences with party position estimates from different sources for studying voting behavior and representation

Researchers interested in policy voting and substantive representation face the challenge to combine party positions with voter preference data on a common scale. One solution is to rely on voters’ perceptions of parties’ policy positions, as reported in surveys. However, this kind of data is often only available for the common left–right dimension, but not for more concrete policy scales, and it suffers from bias. We first discuss how to free perceptual data from bias by relying on a Bayesian version of the Aldrich–McKelvey rescaling technique. Then we discuss two prominent alternative sources of party position estimates: expert survey positions, and positions based on the CMP coding scheme of the manifesto project. While both types of party position estimates are considered to be of good quality, it is unclear how they fit into voter preference scales. This paper presents a simple rescaling technique that improves the matching.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context The populist impulse: Cognitive reflection, populist attitudes and candidate preferences A decomposition of partisan advantage in electoral district maps Revisiting eligibility effects of voting at 16: Insights from Austria based on regression discontinuity analyses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1