Political spectrum: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
(Adding anchor to #Spatial model (for backwards compatibility to pages linking to this section) and changing section title to #Spatial models (and adapting text accordingly)) |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A '''political spectrum''' is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolising political dimensions that it models as being independent of one another. |
A '''political spectrum''' is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolising political dimensions that it models as being independent of one another. |
||
Many editors of [[electowiki]] prefer to think of the political spectrum as a multi-dimensional entity. Few editors agree on the best abstract definition of this spectrum.<ref>Refer to the [[EPOV|Electowiki Point of View (EPOV)]]</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<span id="Spatial_model"> |
|||
== Spatial models == |
|||
</span> |
|||
{{main|Spatial models of voting}} |
|||
Many [[spatial models of voting]] put voters and candidates in a multi-dimensional space, where each dimension represents a single political issue,<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Davis|first=Otto A.|last2=Hinich|first2=Melvin J.|last3=Ordeshook|first3=Peter C.|date=1970-01-01|title=An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/66661f9678dbe956e525e87a50b5b4ee6bf280f1|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=64|issue=2|pages=426–448|doi=10.2307/1953842|jstor=1953842|quote=Since our model is multi-dimensional, we can incorporate all criteria which we normally associate with a citizen's voting decision process — issues, style, partisan identification, and the like.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stoetzer|first=Lukas F.|last2=Zittlau|first2=Steffen|date=2015-07-01|title=Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/multidimensional-spatial-voting-with-nonseparable-preferences/112FA71B889588C52C011CE7CEBBDAF2|journal=Political Analysis|volume=23|issue=3|pages=415–428|doi=10.1093/pan/mpv013|issn=1047-1987|quote=The spatial model of voting is ''the'' work horse for theories and empirical models in many fields of political science research, such as the equilibrium analysis in mass elections ... the estimation of legislators’ ideal points ... and the study of voting behavior. ... Its generalization to the multidimensional policy space, the Weighted Euclidean Distance (WED) model ... forms the stable theoretical foundation upon which nearly all present variations, extensions, and applications of multidimensional spatial voting rest.|via=}}</ref> sub-component of an issue,<ref>If voter preferences have more than one peak along a dimension, it needs to be decomposed into multiple dimensions that each only have a single peak. "We can satisfy our assumption about the form of the loss function if we increase the dimensionality of the analysis — by decomposing one dimension into two or more"</ref> or candidate attribute,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tideman|first=T|last2=Plassmann|first2=Florenz|date=June 2008|title=The Source of Election Results: An Empirical Analysis of Statistical Models of Voter Behavior|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228920943|quote=Assume that voters care about the “attributes” of candidates. These attributes form a multi-dimensional “attribute space.”|via=}}</ref> even including non-political properties of the candidates, such as perceived corruption, health, etc.<ref name=":1" /> Voters are then modeled as having an ''ideal point'' in this space, with a preference distance between themselves and each candidate (usually [[W:Euclidean distance|Euclidean distance]]), i.e. a voter may be closer to a candidate on gun control, but disagree on abortion. Voters are then modeled as voting for the candidates whose attributes or policy proposals are nearest to their ideal point (or [[Tactical voting|strategically voting]] to try to minimize their distance to the actual winner).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pitt.edu/~woon/courses/ps2703_Lec4.pdf|title=Introduction to spatial modeling|last=Woon|first=Jonathan|date=|website=University of Pittsburgh|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> Other models that follow the idea of “closeness” are called proximity models.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal | last1 = Rabinowitz | first1 = George | last2 = Macdonald | first2 = Stuart Elaine | title = A directional theory of issue voting | journal = American Political Science Review | volume = 83 | issue = 1 | pages = 93–121 | doi = 10.2307/1956436 | jstor = 1956436 | date = March 1989 | ref = harv |url=|via=}}</ref>{{Rp|93, 96}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* a '''dimension''' n, representing the number of independent issues under consideration. Voters are represented by points in V = [0,1]<sup>n</sup>. |
* a '''dimension''' n, representing the number of independent issues under consideration. Voters are represented by points in V = [0,1]<sup>n</sup>. |
||
| Line 10: | Line 19: | ||
Ultimately, these are projections of [[Spatial model of voting|a multi-dimensional political space]] onto a space of fewer dimensions, to generalize and make discussion simpler. |
Ultimately, these are projections of [[Spatial model of voting|a multi-dimensional political space]] onto a space of fewer dimensions, to generalize and make discussion simpler. |
||
== Nonlinear spaces == |
|||
Not all ways of classifying a political ideology need map to a cube or use the standard p-norm distances. |
|||
==One-dimensional== |
|||
The simplest example of a political spectrum is the [[uniform linear political spectrum]], in which n=1, v(x)=1, and d(x,y)=|x-y|. The directions on this spectrum are normally referred to as left and right. |
|||
==Two-dimensional== |
|||
There are many two-dimensional political spaces. The [[W:Nolan chart|Nolan chart]] and [[W:The Political Compass|Political Compass]] are two popular examples, which can be seen as rotated versions of each other. The [[W:Pournelle chart|Pournelle chart]] is another variation with a different set of axes. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Higher dimensions == |
|||
Political opinion can be divided into essentially any number of dimensions. Some other examples include the 3-dimensional [https://sapplyvalues.github.io Sapply Compass], the 4-dimensional [https://8values.github.io/ 8values] space, and the [https://9axes.github.io/ 9Axes] space. |
|||
One study of German voters found that at least four dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Alós-Ferrer|first1=Carlos|last2=Granić|first2=Đura-Georg|date=2015-09-01|title=Political space representations with approval data|url=http://repub.eur.nl/pub/111247|journal=Electoral Studies|volume=39|pages=56–71|doi=10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003|quote=The analysis reveals that the underlying political landscapes ... are inherently multidimensional and cannot be reduced to a single left-right dimension, or even to a two-dimensional space. ... From this representation, lower-dimensional projections can be considered which help with the visualization of the political space as resulting from an aggregation of voters' preferences. ... Even though the method aims to obtain a representation with as few dimensions as possible, we still obtain representations with four dimensions or more.|hdl=1765/111247}}</ref> |
|||
== Three Telos Model == |
|||
The Three Telos Model or Triangle political Map is a way to describe political believes based on the core axiom of the philosophy. It is based on the concept of a ternary plot where the different underlying philosophies can be mixed but must sum up to the totality of the of the persons ideological position. The incompatibility of the three methods has long been known. Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman advocated for the necessity of putting one of two desired values ahead of the other by stating “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” |
|||
This view of the political landscape was invented to explain what is often called horseshoe theory. A classic example of this is how in economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek's book ''The Road to Serfdom'' he describes Fascism as being an extreme version of communism. This explanation does not have the failings of the simple left-right political spectrum. A video explanation of this model can be found [https://youtu.be/LA9dFRCX0KM here]. |
|||
[[File:Politics map triangle1.png]] |
|||
===Equity/Equality of Outcome=== |
|||
* Justification: Equity can be good because it is fair and reduces harm and abuses of power in many ways |
|||
* Philosophical foundation: Young Hegelians and Marxism |
|||
* Morals: victim culture |
|||
* Economics: marxism/socialism |
|||
* Structure: flat |
|||
* Power holder: government |
|||
* Basic unit: group/collective |
|||
* Truth source: postmodern denial of truth |
|||
* World view: power structures |
|||
Different political philosophers also argue that a good political ideology must also incorporate additional constraints. For instance, from the liberal economic position, Milton Friedman advocated for the necessity of putting one of two desired values ahead of the other by stating "''A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both''". From the economic collectivist position, anarchist Mikhail Bakunin argued that a good political ideology must have both significant amounts of freedom and equality, stating that "''Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality''". These positions are not incompatible since both argue for the same result however the difference lies in what is controlled and what is expected to arise naturally. |
|||
===Freedom/Liberty=== |
|||
* Justification: Freedom can be good because people have a need for self-determination |
|||
* Philosophical foundation: Liberalism and Enlightenment Humanism |
|||
* Morals: dignity culture |
|||
* Economics: free market capitalism |
|||
* Structure: meritocratic/ competence hierarchy |
|||
* Power holder: worthy |
|||
* Basic unit: individual |
|||
* Truth source: scientific method |
|||
* World view: Materialism |
|||
Such additional constraints would impose further structure on a political classification chart; however, it may still be useful to represent political ideologies that violate the constraints. Even if they are in some way suboptimal or are inherently self-contradictory, people may still hold them. |
|||
===Tradition=== |
|||
* Justification: tradition can be good because people have attachment to the practices that tie them to a community, and changing society rapidly can be destructive. |
|||
* Philosophical foundation: Ancient philosophy and Right Hegelianism |
|||
* Morals: honour culture |
|||
* Economics: mercantile/feudal |
|||
* Structure: inherited cast or class hierarchy |
|||
* Power holder: cast or class |
|||
* Basic unit: family or tribe |
|||
* Truth: divine knowledge |
|||
* World view: Idealism |
|||
==Calculations== |
==Calculations== |
||
| Line 75: | Line 36: | ||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
[[Category:Voting theory]] |
[[Category:Voting theory]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 18:51, 10 July 2023
A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolising political dimensions that it models as being independent of one another.
Many editors of electowiki prefer to think of the political spectrum as a multi-dimensional entity. Few editors agree on the best abstract definition of this spectrum.[1]
Spatial models
Many spatial models of voting put voters and candidates in a multi-dimensional space, where each dimension represents a single political issue,[2][3] sub-component of an issue,[4] or candidate attribute,[5] even including non-political properties of the candidates, such as perceived corruption, health, etc.[2] Voters are then modeled as having an ideal point in this space, with a preference distance between themselves and each candidate (usually Euclidean distance), i.e. a voter may be closer to a candidate on gun control, but disagree on abortion. Voters are then modeled as voting for the candidates whose attributes or policy proposals are nearest to their ideal point (or strategically voting to try to minimize their distance to the actual winner).[6] Other models that follow the idea of “closeness” are called proximity models.[7]:93, 96
Mathematically (and spatially), a line on a political spectrum can be defined by:
- a dimension n, representing the number of independent issues under consideration. Voters are represented by points in V = [0,1]n.
- a voter density function v: V → ℜ
- a distance function d: V × V → ℜ that is positive definite and symmetric and satisfies the triangle inequality. Ballots are determined from the assumption that voters prefer candidates which are closer (according to this distance function) to them.
Ultimately, these are projections of a multi-dimensional political space onto a space of fewer dimensions, to generalize and make discussion simpler.
Nonlinear spaces
Not all ways of classifying a political ideology need map to a cube or use the standard p-norm distances.
Different political philosophers also argue that a good political ideology must also incorporate additional constraints. For instance, from the liberal economic position, Milton Friedman advocated for the necessity of putting one of two desired values ahead of the other by stating "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both". From the economic collectivist position, anarchist Mikhail Bakunin argued that a good political ideology must have both significant amounts of freedom and equality, stating that "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". These positions are not incompatible since both argue for the same result however the difference lies in what is controlled and what is expected to arise naturally.
Such additional constraints would impose further structure on a political classification chart; however, it may still be useful to represent political ideologies that violate the constraints. Even if they are in some way suboptimal or are inherently self-contradictory, people may still hold them.
Calculations
Statistics that can be computed from a political spectrum and a set of candidates include:
References
- ↑ Refer to the Electowiki Point of View (EPOV)
- ↑ a b Davis, Otto A.; Hinich, Melvin J.; Ordeshook, Peter C. (1970-01-01). "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process". The American Political Science Review. 64 (2): 426–448. doi:10.2307/1953842. JSTOR 1953842.
Since our model is multi-dimensional, we can incorporate all criteria which we normally associate with a citizen's voting decision process — issues, style, partisan identification, and the like.
- ↑ Stoetzer, Lukas F.; Zittlau, Steffen (2015-07-01). "Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences". Political Analysis. 23 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1093/pan/mpv013. ISSN 1047-1987.
The spatial model of voting is the work horse for theories and empirical models in many fields of political science research, such as the equilibrium analysis in mass elections ... the estimation of legislators’ ideal points ... and the study of voting behavior. ... Its generalization to the multidimensional policy space, the Weighted Euclidean Distance (WED) model ... forms the stable theoretical foundation upon which nearly all present variations, extensions, and applications of multidimensional spatial voting rest.
- ↑ If voter preferences have more than one peak along a dimension, it needs to be decomposed into multiple dimensions that each only have a single peak. "We can satisfy our assumption about the form of the loss function if we increase the dimensionality of the analysis — by decomposing one dimension into two or more"
- ↑ Tideman, T; Plassmann, Florenz (June 2008). "The Source of Election Results: An Empirical Analysis of Statistical Models of Voter Behavior".
Assume that voters care about the “attributes” of candidates. These attributes form a multi-dimensional “attribute space.”
Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ↑ Woon, Jonathan. "Introduction to spatial modeling" (PDF). University of Pittsburgh.
- ↑ Rabinowitz, George; Macdonald, Stuart Elaine (March 1989). "A directional theory of issue voting". American Political Science Review. 83 (1): 93–121. doi:10.2307/1956436. JSTOR 1956436.