Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate

Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate

We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell�...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Legislative studies quarterly 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.11-20
Hauptverfasser: Best, Robin E., Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Dissertations & theses
Left wing politics
Median voter
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 20
container_issue 1
container_start_page 11
container_title Legislative studies quarterly
container_volume 43
creator Best, Robin E.
Budge, Ian
McDonald, Michael D.
description We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell's mild caution to challenge Warwick's rejection more assertively and thoroughly. We show his rejection mistakes responsiveness for congruence, misapprehends how and why the median mandate thesis distinguishes between those two concepts, and fails to take account of a measurement artifact associated with his survey data.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/lsq.12175
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2333911893</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2333911893</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-3b2211acd8dc22b1fabe88f27b337a6159bc9f634e6c5f7cdf77356c24b8882d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AURQdRMFYX_oOAKxdJ8940mZllKVorKSLqephPTYlJm0mQ_nujcevb3M2598Eh5BqyFMab1-GQAgLLT0gEgopEQIGnJMpogYngWX5OLkLYZRkwwTEi6aPr-yq0TdW8x5u6HkLVNiFe6nbo4_7DxVtnK9XEW9VY1btLcuZVHdzVX87I2_3d6-ohKZ_Wm9WyTAwKlidUIwIoY7k1iBq80o5zj0xTylQBudBG-IIuXGFyz4z1jNG8MLjQnHO0dEZupt191x4GF3q5a4euGV9KpJQKAC7oSN1OlOnaEDrn5b6rPlV3lJDJHx1y1CF_dYzsfGK_qtod_wdl-fI8Nb4BP0NgIA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2333911893</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline</source><source>Wiley Online Library</source><source>Political Science Complete (EB_SDU_P3)</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Best, Robin E. ; Budge, Ian ; McDonald, Michael D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Best, Robin E. ; Budge, Ian ; McDonald, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><description>We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell's mild caution to challenge Warwick's rejection more assertively and thoroughly. We show his rejection mistakes responsiveness for congruence, misapprehends how and why the median mandate thesis distinguishes between those two concepts, and fails to take account of a measurement artifact associated with his survey data.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-9805</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9162</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/lsq.12175</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Iowa City: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Dissertations &amp; theses ; Left wing politics ; Median voter</subject><ispartof>Legislative studies quarterly, 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.11-20</ispartof><rights>2017 Washington University in St. Louis</rights><rights>2018 Washington University in St. Louis</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-3b2211acd8dc22b1fabe88f27b337a6159bc9f634e6c5f7cdf77356c24b8882d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-3b2211acd8dc22b1fabe88f27b337a6159bc9f634e6c5f7cdf77356c24b8882d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Flsq.12175$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Flsq.12175$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Best, Robin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budge, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonald, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><title>Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate</title><title>Legislative studies quarterly</title><description>We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell's mild caution to challenge Warwick's rejection more assertively and thoroughly. We show his rejection mistakes responsiveness for congruence, misapprehends how and why the median mandate thesis distinguishes between those two concepts, and fails to take account of a measurement artifact associated with his survey data.</description><subject>Dissertations &amp; theses</subject><subject>Left wing politics</subject><subject>Median voter</subject><issn>0362-9805</issn><issn>1939-9162</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AURQdRMFYX_oOAKxdJ8940mZllKVorKSLqephPTYlJm0mQ_nujcevb3M2598Eh5BqyFMab1-GQAgLLT0gEgopEQIGnJMpogYngWX5OLkLYZRkwwTEi6aPr-yq0TdW8x5u6HkLVNiFe6nbo4_7DxVtnK9XEW9VY1btLcuZVHdzVX87I2_3d6-ohKZ_Wm9WyTAwKlidUIwIoY7k1iBq80o5zj0xTylQBudBG-IIuXGFyz4z1jNG8MLjQnHO0dEZupt191x4GF3q5a4euGV9KpJQKAC7oSN1OlOnaEDrn5b6rPlV3lJDJHx1y1CF_dYzsfGK_qtod_wdl-fI8Nb4BP0NgIA</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Best, Robin E.</creator><creator>Budge, Ian</creator><creator>McDonald, Michael D.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate</title><author>Best, Robin E. ; Budge, Ian ; McDonald, Michael D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-3b2211acd8dc22b1fabe88f27b337a6159bc9f634e6c5f7cdf77356c24b8882d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Dissertations &amp; theses</topic><topic>Left wing politics</topic><topic>Median voter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Best, Robin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budge, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonald, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Legislative studies quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Best, Robin E.</au><au>Budge, Ian</au><au>McDonald, Michael D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate</atitle><jtitle>Legislative studies quarterly</jtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>11-20</pages><issn>0362-9805</issn><eissn>1939-9162</eissn><abstract>We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell's mild caution to challenge Warwick's rejection more assertively and thoroughly. We show his rejection mistakes responsiveness for congruence, misapprehends how and why the median mandate thesis distinguishes between those two concepts, and fails to take account of a measurement artifact associated with his survey data.</abstract><cop>Iowa City</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/lsq.12175</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0362-9805
ispartof Legislative studies quarterly, 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.11-20
issn 0362-9805
1939-9162
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2333911893
source Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline; Wiley Online Library; Political Science Complete (EB_SDU_P3); Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
subjects Dissertations & theses
Left wing politics
Median voter
title Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T16%3A33%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Jettisoning%20Illusions%20About%20the%20Median%20Mandate&rft.jtitle=Legislative%20studies%20quarterly&rft.au=Best,%20Robin%20E.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=11-20&rft.issn=0362-9805&rft.eissn=1939-9162&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/lsq.12175&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2333911893%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2333911893&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true