Contrast with the proximity model
Spatial voting theory, represented by Downs (1957) and Enelow and Hinich (1984), assumes voters pick the candidate nearest them in ideological or issue space. This proximity model predicts that candidates converge toward the median voter. Yet real parties often fail to converge and take distinct positions, calling for an alternative explanation.
The core of the directional theory
Rabinowitz and Macdonald (1989) argued that voters perceive issues less as precise positions than as a direction, for or against, and an intensity of feeling. A voter's utility therefore rises when a candidate is on the same side and when both hold intense views. They added a region of acceptability: candidates beyond it appear irresponsible and are penalized. Macdonald and colleagues (1991) reported that party support in multiparty systems such as Norway fits direction better than proximity.
Debate and tests
Westholm (1997) defended proximity theory, arguing that earlier tests were biased against it. Lewis and King (1999) showed that the commonly used aggregate data cannot distinguish the two theories. Tomz and Van Houweling (2008) used survey experiments to find that more voters follow proximity, though a share judge by direction.
FAQ
- What is the directional theory of voting in simple terms?
- Voters may like a candidate who speaks out more clearly and strongly on their side over one whose position exactly matches their own.
- How do its predictions differ from the proximity model?
- The proximity model predicts candidates gather in the center, while directional theory predicts parties benefit from taking clear stands within an acceptable range.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row. The proximity baseline.
- Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Textbook on spatial voting.
- Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121. The founding article.
- Macdonald, S. E., Listhaug, O., & Rabinowitz, G. (1991). Issues and party support in multiparty systems. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1107–1131. Application to multiparty systems.
- Westholm, A. (1997). Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 865–883. Defends proximity theory.
- Lewis, J. B., & King, G. (1999). No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis, 8(1), 21–33. Methodological critique.
- Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2008). Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review, 102(3), 303–318. Experimental comparison of voting rules.