EDITOR’S PROOF
Inferring Ideological Ambiguity from Survey Data 381553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598this assumption is violated. A survey experiment where, in placing parties, some re-
spondents use the interval scales (e.g. Tomz and van Houweling 2009 ) while others
place them on the standard single-point scales could evaluate the empirical plau-
sibility of this assumption. Second, external validation analyses using direct mea-
sures of ideological ambiguity as benchmarks could also elicit potential strengths
and weaknesses of the proposed model.References
Albert JH, Chib S (1993) Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. J Am Stat
Assoc 88(442):669–679
Aldrich J (1983) A spatial model with party activists: implications for electoral dynamics. Public
Choice 41(1):63–100
Aldrich J (1995) Why parties?: The origin and transformation of political parties in America.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Aldrich J, Mckelvey R (1977) A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presi-
dential elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 71(1):111–130
Alesina A, Cukierman A (1990) The politics of ambiguity. Q J Econ 105(4):829–850
Alvarez MR (1997) Information and elections. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM Jr, Stewart CS III (2001) Candidate positioning in US house elections.
Am J Polit Sci 45(1):136–159
Bartels L (1986) Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. Am J Polit Sci 30:709–728
Benoit K, Laver M (2006) Party policy in modern democracies. Routledge, London
Callander S, Wilson CH (2008) Context-dependent voting and political ambiguity. J Public Econ
92(3–4):565–581
Campbell JE (1983a) Ambiguity in the issue positions of presidential candidates: a causal analysis.
Am J Polit Sci 27(2):284–293
Campbell JE (1983b) The electoral consequences of issue ambiguity: an examination of the presi-
dential candidates’ issue positions from 1968 to 1980. Polit Behav 5(3):277–291
Clinton JD, Jackman S, Rivers D (2004) The statistical analysis of roll call data. Am Polit Sci Rev
98:355–370
Clinton JD, Lewis DE (2007) Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Polit
Anal 16(1):3–20
Evans G, Whitefield S (2000) Explaining the formation of electoral cleavages in post-communist
democracies. In: Klingemann HD (ed) Elections in central and eastern Europe. The first wave,
Edition Sigma, Berlin
Gelfand AE, Smith AFM (1990) Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities.
J Am Stat Assoc 85(410):398–409
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HB, Rubin DB (2003) Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman and
Hall, London
Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior
moments. In: Bernado JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics, 4th edn.
Clarendon, Oxford
Glazer A (1990) The strategy of candidate ambiguity. Am Polit Sci Rev 84(1):237–241
Heidelberger P, Welch PD (1983) Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial tran-
sient. Oper Res 31:1109–1144
Huyse L, Thacker BH (2004) Decision making under uncertainty on the basis of expert opinion.
In manuscript
Johnson VE, Albert JH (1999) Ordinal data modeling. Springer, New York
Kitschelt H, Mansfeldova Z, Markowski R, Toka G (1999) Post-communist party systems. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge