Position issues and valence issues
Stokes (1963) criticized Downs's spatial model for treating every issue as a matter of location between left and right. Some issues, such as abortion or tax rates, are position issues on which voters want different things, but many, such as prosperity and security, are valence issues on which everyone wants the same outcome. On valence issues, what matters is not what a party wants but whether it can achieve it. The distinction shows why predictions of convergence, as in the median voter theorem, fail to fully explain election outcomes.
The valence model and evidence
Stokes (1992) consolidated the idea as valence politics. Clarke and colleagues (2004) analyzed British election data and showed that voters rely on judgments of economic management, leader evaluations and flexible partisanship, and that this model outperforms class- or ideology-based accounts. Clark (2009) found across Western Europe that events damaging party image, such as corruption scandals and internal divisions, cost votes. This connects with retrospective voting, in which past performance signals competence.
Party competition and limits
Groseclose (2001) modeled how a candidate facing a rival with a valence advantage may move away from the center. Green (2007) argued that elections become valence contests as ideological differences narrow, and Green and Jennings (2012) showed that competence ratings tend to erode the longer a party holds power. Critics note that what counts as a valence issue varies across time and people, and that competence ratings are heavily shaped by partisan affect. The framework nonetheless helps explain elections that ideological conflict alone cannot.
FAQ
- What is valence politics in simple terms?
- On problems where everyone wants the same goal, such as a good economy, votes depend on which party people believe will do the job better.
- How does it differ from issue ownership theory?
- Both stress perceived competence, but issue ownership emphasizes long-standing party strengths on specific issues, while valence politics emphasizes overall competence judgments that change over time.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377. The original distinction between position and valence issues.
- Stokes, D. E. (1992). Valence politics. In D. Kavanagh (Ed.), Electoral Politics (pp. 141–164). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stokes's later statement naming valence politics.
- Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886. Adds a valence advantage to spatial models of candidate location.
- Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2004). Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shows the valence model outperforms rivals in British elections.
- Green, J. (2007). When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies, 55(3), 629–655. Argues valence competition grows as parties converge.
- Clark, M. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 111–122. Shows valence damage such as scandals costs votes in Western Europe.
- Green, J., & Jennings, W. (2012). The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: An analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997. European Journal of Political Research, 51(4), 469–503. Tracks how competence ratings shift for parties in and out of power.