The theory of spatial voting has played a large role in the development of important results across many areas of political science. Directly testing the foundational assumptions of spatial voting theory, however, has not been possible with existing data. Using a novel survey design, this article obtains estimates of voter ideology on the same scale as candidate positions. The results of this scaling demonstrate that voters possess meaningful ideologies and, furthermore, that these beliefs are strongly related to the sorts of policy proposals considered in Congress. These ideology estimates are then used to uncover the actual relationships between ideology and vote choice for citizens of various types in the 2004 presidential election. Although the choices of independent voters are shown to be largely consistent with the assumptions of spatial voting theory, the decision rules used by partisans differ strongly from what unbiased spatial voting would imply. Although partisans do converge toward the behavior of independents, and hence toward the assumptions of spatial voting theory, as information levels increase, we see that even highly informed partisans show significant differences from what would be implied by unbiased spatial voting theory.

This article provides direct estimates of the parameters of spatial utility models of voting using data from the 2008 presidential election. By measuring citizens' views on issues for which candidates' stances are known, I estimate voter ideology on the same scale as candidate positions. Using these estimates, I demonstrate that policy exerts a strong influence on vote choice for most voters. While independents appear to cast their ballots in accordance with the assumptions of unbiased spatial voting, partisans are strongly biased toward their party's nominee by spatial standards. At lower levels of political information, voters are influenced primarily by their party identification, with policy views having little impact on vote choice. More highly informed citizens, by contrast, show strong relationships between policy views and vote choice. As information levels increase, the spatial biases exhibited by partisan voters decreases, but even among the most informed citizens, significant partisan biases remain.

The purpose of this study was to identify teaching styles that complement the learning preferences of undergraduate dental students while enhancing the quality of patient care. A formidable challenge to reform in dental education has been overcoming the resistance by faculty and administration to recommended changes. The organizational structure of dental institutions, with their independent departments, makes obtaining consensus on educational issues difficult. For beneficial change to occur, clear evidence of the benefits to all within the organization must be presented. The objectives of the study were to 1) identify the most common personality types among first-and second-year undergraduate dental students at the University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI ® ); 2) identify the learning preferences of these personality types; and 3) determine a more effective approach to teaching clinical dentistry based upon student personality types and learning preferences. Four common personality types were identified among respondents: ISTJ, ESFJ, ESTJ, and ISFJ, with a predisposition for Sensing (S) (desire for facts, use of senses) over Intuition (N) (look for possibilities, relationships) and Judging (J) (prefers decisiveness, closure) over Perceiving (P) (desire flexibility, spontaneity). The most common occurring personality type, ISTJ, represents an Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging individual. Specific clinical curricular techniques that would appeal to these common personality types are identified, and an explanation of their benefit is provided. Results of this study demonstrate the importance of faculty understanding and acknowledging different student personality types and related learning preferences as a way to initiate improvement of undergraduate dental education, promote student motivation, and allow for an expression of learning style preference.

Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections addresses two core issues related to the foundations of democratic governance: how the political views of Americans are structured and how citizens' voting decisions relate to their ideological proximity to the candidates. Focusing on testing the assumptions and implications of spatial voting, this book connects the theory with empirical analysis of voter preferences and behavior, showing Americans cast their ballots largely in accordance with spatial voting theory. Stephen A. Jessee's research shows voters possess meaningful ideologies that structure their policy beliefs, moderated by partisanship and differing levels of political information. Jessee finds that while voters with lower levels of political information are more influenced by partisanship, independents and better informed partisans are able to form reasonably accurate perceptions of candidates' ideologies. His findings should reaffirm citizens' faith in the broad functioning of democratic elections.

Estimating the ideological positions of political elites on the same scale as those of ordinary citizens has great potential to increase our understanding of voting behavior, representation, and other political phenomena. There has been limited attention, however, to the fundamental issues, both practical and conceptual, involved in conducting these joint scalings, or to the sensitivity of these estimates to modeling assumptions and data choices. I show that the standard strategy of estimating ideal point models using preference data on citizens and elites can suffer from potentially problematic pathologies. This article explores these issues and presents a technique that can be used to investigate the effects of modeling assumptions on resulting estimates and also to impose restrictions on the ideological dimension being estimated in a straightforward way.

No abstract

Most analyses of congressional voting, whether theoretical or empirical, treat all roll-call votes in the same way. We argue that such approaches mask considerable variation in voting behaviour across different types of votes. In examining all roll-call votes in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 93rd to the 110th Congresses (1973–2008), we find that the forces affecting legislators’ voting on procedural and final passage matters have exhibited important changes over time, with differences between these two vote types becoming larger, particularly in recent congresses. These trends have important implications not only on how we study congressional voting behaviour, but also in how we evaluate representation and polarization in the modern Congress.

A prominent worry in the measurement of political knowledge is that respondents who say they don’t know the answer to a survey question may have partial knowledge about the topic—more than respondents who answer incorrectly but less than those who answer correctly. It has also been asserted that differentials in respondents’ willingness to guess, driven strongly by personality, can bias traditional knowledge measures. Using a multinomial probit item response model, I show that, contrary to previous claims that “don’t know” responses to political knowledge questions conceal a good deal of “hidden knowledge,” these responses are actually reflective of less knowledge, not only than correct responses but also than incorrect answers. Furthermore, arguments that the meaning of “don’t know” responses varies strongly by respondent personality type are incorrect. In fact, these results hold for high- and low-trait respondents on each of the five most commonly used core personality measures.