The literature highlights how different individual levels of political interest and knowledge matter for political attitudes and behavior. A logical-quantitative voting model is thus proposed for a two-party system, based on voters' left—right ideological positions and their degree of political involvement. The model hypothesizes that although more involved voters generally behave in accordance with their ideological orientation, those who are less involved do not. Moreover, the latter tend to be more undecided and therefore likely to be more strongly influenced by campaign activities. This model is then applied to survey data regarding the 2001 Italian general elections. Results confirm the hypotheses and show that the most competitive area is ideologically a narrow centrist area for very involved citizens, becoming wider as the level of involvement decreases. Separate analyses are carried out for different geopolitical areas of the country, with results fitting the political history of these areas.
Adams, J., Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Alvarez, R.M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Basinger, S.J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice . American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
5.
Basinger, S.J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice . American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
6.
Cartocci, R. (1987). Otto risposte a un problema: La divisione dell'Italia in zone politicamente omogenee [Eight answers to a problem: The division of Italy in politically homogeneous areas]. Polis, 1(3), 481-514.
7.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766..
8.
Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
9.
Conway, M.M. (2000). Political participation in the United States (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Corbetta, P., Parisi, A., & Schadee, H. (1988). Elezioni in Italia: Struttura e tipologia delle consultazioni politiche [Elections in Italy: Structure and typology of political elections]. Bologna, Italy: Società Editrice il Mulino.
11.
Delli Carpini, M.X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
13.
Enelow, J.M., & Hinich, M.J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Fuchs, D., & Klingemann, H.-D. (1989). The left—right schema . In M. Kent Jennings & J. W. Van Deth (Eds.), Continuities in political action (pp. 203-234). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
15.
Galli, G. (1966). Il bipartitismo imperfetto: Comunisti e democristiani in Italia [Imperfect bipartisanism: Communists and Christian Democrats in Italy]. Bologna, Italy: Società EditriceIl Mulino.
16.
Grofman, B. (1985). The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics, 47, 230-237.
17.
Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25-46.
18.
Gunther, R., & Montero, J.R. (2001). The anchors of partisanship: A comparative analysis of voting behavior in four Southern European democracies. In N. P. Diamandouros & R. Gunther (Eds.), Parties, politics, and democracy in the new southern Europe (pp. 83-152). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H.-D. (1976). Party identification, ideological preference and the left-right dimension among Western mass publics. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond: Representations of voting and party competition (pp. 243-273). London: Wiley.
20.
Italian National Election Studies. (2001). Perché ha vinto il centro-destra [Why the center-right won]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
21.
Kendall, M.G., & Stuart, A. (1950). The law of the cubic proportion in election results . British Journal of Sociology,1(3), 183-196.
22.
Knutsen, O. (1995). Value orientations, political conflicts and left-right identification: A comparative study. European Journal of Political Research, 28(1), 63-93.
23.
Knutsen, O. (1997). The partisan and the value-based component of left—right self-placement: A comparative study. International Political Science Review, 18(2), 191-225.
24.
Luskin, R.C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 856-899.
25.
Macdonald, S.E., Rabinowitz, G., & Listhaug, O. (1995). Political sophistication and models of issue voting . British Journal of Political Science, 25, 453-483.
26.
Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
27.
Parisi, A., & Pasquino, G. (1977). Relazioni partiti-elettori e tipi di voto [Parties-voters relationships and voting behavior types]. In A. Parisi & G. Pasquino (Eds.), Continuità e mutamento elettorale in Italia: Le elezioni del 20 giugno 1976 e il sistema politico Italiano (pp. 215-249). Bologna, Italy: Il mulino.
28.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion—Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.
29.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York : Springer-Verlag.
30.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S.E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93-121.
32.
Reynolds, H.T. (1974). Rationality and attitudes toward political parties and candidates. Journal of Politics, 37, 983-1005.
33.
Riker, W.H., & Ordeshook, P.C. (1973). An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Rivers, D. (1988). Heterogeneity in models of electoral choice. American Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 737-757.
35.
Schadee, H.M.A., & Segatti, P. (2002). Informazione politica, spazio elettorale ed elettori in movimento [Political information, electoral space and floating voters] . In M. Caciagli & P. Corbetta (Eds.), Le ragioni dell'elettore. Perché ha vinto il centro-destra nelle elezioni Italiane del 2001 (pp. 339-369). Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
36.
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Taagepera, R. (2005a, April). Beyond regression: The need for logical models. Paper presented at the Third Conference of the Belgian Political Science Association—French community, Liège, Belgium.
38.
Taagepera, R. (2005b, September). Predictive vs. postdictive models . Paper presented at the Third European Consortium for Political Research Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
39.
Tufte, E.R. (1973). Relationship between seats and votes in Two-party systems. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 540-554.
40.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
