Ideology and the construction of nationality: The Canadian elections of 1993

  • Melvin J. Hinich
  • Michael C. Munger
  • Scott De Marchi
Chapter

Abstract

Canada is one nation, but it is in many ways two communities, one Francophone and the other Anglophone. We employ a formal model of “ideology” and analyze how nationality is constructed in people’s minds. The magnitude of the changes in expressed “preferences” in terms of ideology depends on the salience of the new issue, the extent to which it confirms with the existing ideological cleavage, and the difference between the perceived status quo on the new dimension and the voter’s most preferred alternative. Using data from the 1993 Canadian National Election Study, we consider the relative importance of different policy dimensions in explaining voting decisions among educated Canadians. The issue of Quebec sovereignty, alone, is shown to have significant power for predicting vote choice. A plausible explanation, confirmed here by regression analysis, is that Quebec sovereignty “stands” for other issues in voters’ conception of Canadian politics.

Keywords

Public Choice Ideal Point Indifference Curve Policy Space American Political Science Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. (1983). A spatial model with party activists: Implications for electoral dynamics. Public Choice 41: 63–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. (1995). Why parties?: The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bothwell, R. (1995). Canada and Quebec: One country, two histories. British Columbia: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brimelow, P. (1986). The patriot game: National dreams and political realities. New York: K. Porter Books.Google Scholar
  5. Brimelow, P. (1995). Alien nation: Common sense about America’s immigration disaster. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, H. and Stewart, M. (1992). Light anchors, choppy seas: Social structure and party choice in Canada. In M. Franklin, et al. (Eds.), Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clarkson, S. (1978). Anti-nationalism in Canada: The ideology of mainstream economics. Canadian Review of Studies in nationalism 5: 45–65.Google Scholar
  8. Denzau, A. and North, D. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47: 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enelow, J. and Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Flanagan, T. (1994). Invasion from the right: The reform party in the 1993 Canadian election. Papers in Political Economy, No. 42. Political Research Group: University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, G. (1994). Plan B: The future of the rest of Canada. British Columbia: Fraser Institute. Hinich, M. and Munger, M. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hinich, M. and Munger, M. (1997). New issues and the dynamics of political change. Typescript. Department of Political Science, Duke University.Google Scholar
  13. Hinich, M. and Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, R. (1993). Issues and party allignments: A review with Canadian examples. In A. Breton, et al. (Eds.), Preferences and democracy, 265–286. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, B. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kornberg, A. (1988). Politics and culture in Canada. Ann Arbor, Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  17. Kornberg, A. and Clarke, H. (1992). Citizens and community: Political support in a representative democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kornberg, A., Mishler, W. and Smith, J. (1975). Political elite and mass perceptions of party locations in issue space: Some tests of two propositions. British Journal of Political Science 5: 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review 86: 390–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDonald, S. and Rabinowitz, G. (1987). The dynamics of structural realignment. American Political Science Review 81: 775–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKelvey, R. (1976). Intransitivities in multidimensional voting bodies and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory 30: 283–314.Google Scholar
  22. McRae, K.D. (1964). The structure of Canadian history. In L. Hartz (Ed.), The founding of new societies. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  23. Migué J.-L. (1977). Public choice in a federal system. Public Choice 90: 000–000.Google Scholar
  24. Morris, R.B. et al. (Eds.). (1982). Encyclopedia of American history. 6th edition. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
  25. Moynihan, D.P. (1993). Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in international politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ordeshook, P.C. (1976). The spatial theory of elections: A review and critique. In I. Budge, et al. (Eds.), Party identification and beyond. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1993). Spatial realignment and the mapping of issues in U.S. history: The evidence from roll call voting. In W. Riker (Ed.), Agenda formation, 12–40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rabinowitz, G. and MacDonald, S. (1989). A direction theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Riker, W. (1982). Liberalism vs. populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. Riker, W. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Riker, W. (1990). Heresthetic and rhetoric in the spatial model. In J. Enelow and M. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schofield, N. (1985). Anarchy, altruism, and cooperation. Social Choice and Welfare 2: 207–219.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, M. (1976). Anarchy and cooperation. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, M. (1982). Community, anarchy, and liberty. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, D.C. (1988). Vive le Québec libre. Toronto: Deneau Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melvin J. Hinich
    • 1
  • Michael C. Munger
    • 2
  • Scott De Marchi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentUniversity of Texas-AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations