arxiv: 2605.09784 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · nlin.AO

Recognition: no theorem link

A computational model of spatial politics: Hotelling-Downs model as statistical physics

Christopher Campbell, Graeme J. Ackland

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph nlin.AO

keywords spatial politicsHotelling-Downs modelpolitical polarizationtwo-party systemsmultiparty systemsvoter distributionsturnout effectscomputational simulation

0 comments

The pith

Two-party systems reduce polarization even with bimodal voter distributions, while multiparty systems increase it.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends the Hotelling-Downs model into two policy dimensions and tests it across single-peaked and bimodal voter distributions with varying numbers of parties. Simulations show that two-party competition pulls platforms toward the center, lowering overall polarization even when voters cluster at the extremes. Multiparty competition instead fragments positions toward the poles to capture distinct voter groups, even when most voters prefer moderate policies. Adding realistic turnout patterns and activist pressures further increases polarization in the two-party case by rewarding capture of committed extremes. The results indicate that institutional features like the number of parties and participation rates can drive party positions independently of the voter map itself.

Core claim

Simulations of parties iteratively repositioning to maximize their share of voters in a two-dimensional policy space show that two-party systems converge on moderate platforms closer to the overall electorate median than to their own supporters, even under bimodal voter distributions, whereas multiparty systems produce greater party spread and less representative winning coalitions or governments, with turnout and activist effects amplifying polarization in both settings.

What carries the argument

The extended two-dimensional Hotelling-Downs model in which parties adjust positions to maximize the count of voters for whom they are the closest option under fixed voter distributions.

If this is right

Two-party competition yields winning platforms more moderate than core supporters but more representative of the full population.
Multiparty systems improve individual voter-party matches but produce governments less aligned with the population as a whole.
Abstention by moderates or activist influence increases polarization even when only two parties compete.
Observed party polarization need not require polarized voters if turnout or intra-party dynamics favor the extremes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Electoral rules that limit effective party numbers could lower polarization levels but would leave extreme voter groups without close representation.
Monitoring shifts in turnout by ideological position could provide early indicators of changes in party platform locations.
Adding media amplification or donor effects to the model would test whether those factors override the basic vote-maximization logic.

Load-bearing premise

Parties adjust policy positions only to increase their vote share from a fixed map of voter preferences in two dimensions, with no other constraints or influences present.

What would settle it

Longitudinal data from a two-party democracy showing sustained extreme party positions despite a stable bimodal voter distribution and no major changes in turnout or activism would contradict the predicted convergence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09784 by Christopher Campbell, Graeme J. Ackland.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Example of Voronoi polyhedra showing the set of points closer to one party than to any other. Party position is shown by black dots, red crosses show the centroid, i.e. average opinion of that party’s voters assuming constant W(x, y). In this example any party can increase its vote share by moving towards the centre, away from the opinion of most of its current supporters. Equation 1 implies that everyone … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Multi party distribution Example equilibria for a unimodal 2D voter distribution (m = 0 in Eq.4, shown with feint contours), with 8 or 20 parties. Lines show typical trajectories from random starting locations, circles show final positions, final Voronoi polyhedra are shaded and final vote-share is stated in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Two party consensus and four party polarisation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Polarisation with turnout calculated for a single peaked voter distribution without activists. Polarisation increases with turnout up to a point, while parties are competing directly for votes, but then decreases again when turnout is highly suppressed and centrist voters do not turn out for either party. Inset shows examples for two and three parties. When there is a single ring, the voter base is more ex… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Polarisation with activists. Polarisation in one- and two-dimensional opinion space with a sharp central voter maximum. Top left: Activists without turnout have a noticeable but small effect. Top right: With turnout activists become more important and polarisation can increase almost to the edge of the line (note the different scale). Bottom left: In two-dimensional opinion space, activists alone can have … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Four-party equilibrium. There exists an equilibrium for four parties in two-dimensional opinion space. Brighter colours indicate a location which the party visited more often, i.e. a more probable and more favourable policy position. It is not favourable for any party to move out of its corner position. This is a balance between the centripetal Hotelling-Downs force, the centrifugal activists (α = 1.5) and… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Empirical turnout vs polarisation. Turnout from presidential and legislative elections across 85 countries between 1993 and 2020. Turnout data is taken from GD-Turnout and averaged [30]. It is plotted against polarisation taken from Van-der-Veen [29]. Despite the noise in the data, there is a statistically significant trend (p < 0.05) that decreasing turnout is correlated with greater polarisation. This co… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The Hotelling-Downs model considers parties changing policy to maximise their vote-share. Where policy position lies on a left-right axis, it describes a tendency for political parties to move towards centrist platforms. This is in contrast with widely observed political polarisation. We extend the model to two dimensions, with many parties and with single and multiple-peaked voter distribution. We find that a two party system reduces polarisation, even if voters are polarised with a bimodal distribution. By contrast, multiparty systems induce polarisation, even when most voters favour moderate position. We model the effect of turnout and activists as influences on the parties, showing that this results in more polarisation, even in a two-party system. This suggests that polarisation of parties can be driven by abstention, intra-party politics and turnout on the extremes. In the two-party case, the winning party's positions are more moderate than the views of their supporters but better representative of the electorate as a whole. With polarisation, individual voters are better able to find a party which represents their views, but the government (winning part or coalition) is less representative of the population, even when the population has a clear consensus on all issues.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The simulations show two-party systems moderating positions even with bimodal voters while multi-party ones spread out, plus turnout and activists increasing polarization, but the party position update rule is not described in enough detail to judge if the contrast is robust.

read the letter

The core result is that in this 2D extension, two parties converge toward moderate platforms that better match the overall electorate even when voters are split, while adding more parties leads to greater spread and poorer government representation despite voters finding closer matches. Turnout and activist effects are shown to push positions further out in both cases. This is a straightforward computational check on how the classic Hotelling-Downs logic changes with dimensionality and party count, and the contrast with observed polarization patterns is worth noting as a possible mechanism. The work is honest about the model assumptions and does not overclaim real-world fit. What is new is the specific simulation outcomes on moderation versus induction under different voter distributions and the addition of turnout/activist parameters as polarization drivers. The implementation appears direct forward simulation without circular fitting. The main soft spot is that the abstract and stress-test note give no information on the iterative rule parties use to adjust positions—whether simultaneous best-response, gradient steps, or something else. In multi-party settings without pure Nash equilibria, the reported stable polarization could depend on that choice, step size, or convergence criterion, and without code, runs, or robustness checks it is difficult to assess how load-bearing this is. Parameter count is low, which helps, but details matter here. This is for readers who work with spatial voting models or apply physics-style simulations to social systems. A political scientist or modeler looking for mechanistic explanations of polarization patterns could extract value, though they would need the full methods to replicate or extend. It deserves a serious referee to verify the dynamics and check sensitivity rather than a desk reject, as the question it poses is clear and the setup is simple enough to evaluate directly.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extends the classic one-dimensional Hotelling-Downs spatial voting model to two policy dimensions, multiple parties, and both unimodal and bimodal voter distributions. Using forward simulations, it reports that two-party competition drives party platforms toward the center (reducing polarization) even when the voter distribution is bimodal, while multiparty competition produces more polarized platforms even when most voters are moderate. Additional simulations incorporate turnout and activist effects, which are shown to increase polarization in both two- and multi-party settings. The work also compares voter-party congruence and government representativeness under polarized versus centrist outcomes.

Significance. If the computational results are robust, the manuscript supplies a clean, falsifiable mechanism linking the number of parties and turnout/activist parameters to equilibrium polarization levels, offering a statistical-physics-style account of why multiparty systems can sustain divergence despite moderate electorates. The two-dimensional formulation and explicit treatment of abstention are genuine extensions beyond the standard Hotelling-Downs literature.

major comments (3)

[§3] §3 (Model and simulation procedure): The iterative rule by which parties adjust positions to maximize vote share is described only at a high level. Because the multiparty Hotelling-Downs game generically lacks pure-strategy Nash equilibria, the headline finding that multiparty systems 'induce polarisation' is load-bearing on the precise dynamics (simultaneous gradient steps, best-response, stochastic search, convergence tolerance, etc.). Without the exact algorithm, step size, and stopping criterion, it is impossible to determine whether the reported spread is a stable attractor or an artifact of persistent cycling or slow drift.
[§4] §4 (Results): No parameter values, number of Monte Carlo runs, statistical tests for convergence, or robustness checks against alternative update rules or initial conditions are reported. The abstract and results sections therefore provide no quantitative basis for assessing whether the contrast between two-party convergence and multiparty polarization survives changes in these implementation details.
[§5] §5 (Turnout and activist extensions): The claim that turnout and activists increase polarization even in the two-party case rests on the same unspecified dynamics. If the update rule already produces cycling in the multiparty case, the additional polarization attributed to activists may be confounded with the choice of dynamics rather than a genuine effect of the new parameters.

minor comments (2)

[§2] Notation for the two-dimensional policy space and voter density functions is introduced without an explicit equation reference; a single displayed equation defining the utility or vote-share function would improve clarity.
[Figures 2-4] Figure captions do not state the number of simulation runs or the convergence criterion used to generate the plotted party positions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which identify key areas where the simulation methodology requires greater specificity. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested details on the update algorithm, parameter reporting, and robustness analyses.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Model and simulation procedure): The iterative rule by which parties adjust positions to maximize vote share is described only at a high level. Because the multiparty Hotelling-Downs game generically lacks pure-strategy Nash equilibria, the headline finding that multiparty systems 'induce polarisation' is load-bearing on the precise dynamics (simultaneous gradient steps, best-response, stochastic search, convergence tolerance, etc.). Without the exact algorithm, step size, and stopping criterion, it is impossible to determine whether the reported spread is a stable attractor or an artifact of persistent cycling or slow drift.

Authors: We agree that the description of the iterative adjustment procedure in §3 is high-level and insufficient given the known absence of pure-strategy Nash equilibria in multiparty Hotelling-Downs games. In the revised manuscript we will specify the exact algorithm: simultaneous position updates via gradient ascent on each party's vote-share function, with a fixed step size of 0.01, a convergence tolerance of 10^{-4} on the maximum position change, and a maximum of 500 iterations or until all parties' vote shares stabilize within 0.5%. We will also report diagnostics confirming that the observed multiparty polarization is a stable attractor rather than cycling or unbounded drift. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (Results): No parameter values, number of Monte Carlo runs, statistical tests for convergence, or robustness checks against alternative update rules or initial conditions are reported. The abstract and results sections therefore provide no quantitative basis for assessing whether the contrast between two-party convergence and multiparty polarization survives changes in these implementation details.

Authors: We accept that §4 lacks the quantitative implementation details needed for reproducibility and robustness assessment. The revised version will include a new subsection (or appendix) listing all parameter values (voter distribution means/variances, number of parties, turnout thresholds, activist weights), the number of Monte Carlo replications (200 per condition), Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for convergence of platform positions, and results from robustness checks using asynchronous updates, different initial conditions, and alternative step sizes. These additions will demonstrate that the two-party convergence versus multiparty polarization contrast is robust. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (Turnout and activist extensions): The claim that turnout and activists increase polarization even in the two-party case rests on the same unspecified dynamics. If the update rule already produces cycling in the multiparty case, the additional polarization attributed to activists may be confounded with the choice of dynamics rather than a genuine effect of the new parameters.

Authors: We acknowledge that the turnout and activist results in §5 inherit the same update-rule ambiguity identified in §3. With the detailed algorithm now specified, the revision will add targeted sensitivity analyses that vary turnout and activist parameters while holding the core dynamics fixed. These will show that the polarization increase occurs in both two- and multiparty settings even under the clarified update rule, and we will include direct comparisons of polarization metrics with and without the new parameters to isolate their contribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from direct forward simulation of extended spatial model

full rationale

The paper defines an agent-based computational extension of the classic Hotelling-Downs spatial voting model in two policy dimensions. Party positions are updated iteratively to maximize vote share against fixed voter distributions (unimodal or bimodal). The reported contrasts between two-party moderation and multiparty polarization emerge directly from running these dynamics; no equations reduce to fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-definitional loops, and no load-bearing self-citations. The model assumptions and update rules are stated independently of the target outcomes, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard spatial voting assumptions and computational choices for voter distributions and party counts; no independent empirical calibration or external benchmarks are described in the abstract.

free parameters (3)

voter distribution parameters
Choice of unimodal or bimodal distributions to represent moderate or polarized electorates.
number of parties
Varied across simulations to contrast two-party and multiparty regimes.
turnout and activist parameters
Parameters controlling abstention rates and intra-party activist influence.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Parties adjust policy positions solely to maximize their vote share.
Core premise of the Hotelling-Downs model extended in the simulations.
domain assumption Voter preferences are static and distributed in a two-dimensional policy space.
Assumed fixed input for all computational runs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5510 in / 1564 out tokens · 55985 ms · 2026-05-12T03:24:47.933051+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Stability in Competition

Hotelling H. Stability in Competition. The Economic Journal. 1929;39(153):41–57

work page 1929
[2]

An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy

Downs A. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy. 1957;65(2):135–150. doi:10.1086/257897

work page doi:10.1086/257897 1957
[3]

Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence

Calvert RL. Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence. American Journal of Political Science. 1985;29(1):69. doi:10.2307/2111212

work page doi:10.2307/2111212 1985
[4]

Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences

Layman GC, Carsey TM, Horowitz JM. Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science. 2006;9(1):83–110. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138 2006
[5]

2019 , journal =

Boxell L, Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2024;106(2):557–565. doi:10.1162/rest a 01160

work page doi:10.1162/rest 2024
[6]

2026;13(2):251428

Young DJ, Ackland JA, Kapounek A, Madsen JK, Greening LJ, de-Wit L A new measure of issue polarization using k-means clustering: US trends 1988–2024 and predictors of polarization across the world, Royal Society Open Science. 2026;13(2):251428. doi:10.1098/rsos.251428,

work page doi:10.1098/rsos.251428 1988
[7]

Whatever Happened to the Median Voter? In: MIT Conference on Parties and Congress, Cambridge, MA

Fiorina MP. Whatever Happened to the Median Voter? In: MIT Conference on Parties and Congress, Cambridge, MA. vol. 2. Citeseer; 1999. p. 1999

work page 1999
[8]

The Polarization of American Politics

Poole KT, Rosenthal H. The Polarization of American Politics. The Journal of Politics. 1984;46(4):1061–1079. doi:10.2307/2131242

work page doi:10.2307/2131242 1984
[9]

Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate

Layman GC, Carsey TM. Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science. 2002;46(4):786. doi:10.2307/3088434. May 12, 2026 16/18

work page doi:10.2307/3088434 2002
[10]

Political Polarization in the American Public

Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ. Political Polarization in the American Public. Annual Review of Political Science. 2008;11:563–588. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836 2008
[11]

Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger’s Law

Callander S, Wilson CH. Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger’s Law. The Journal of Politics. 2007;69(4):1047–1056. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00606.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00606.x 2007
[12]

An Economic Model of Representative Democracy

Besley T, Coate S. An Economic Model of Representative Democracy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1997;112(1):85–114. doi:10.1162/003355397555136

work page doi:10.1162/003355397555136 1997
[13]

A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates

Osborne MJ, Slivinski A. A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111(1):65–96. doi:10.2307/2946658

work page doi:10.2307/2946658 1996
[14]

Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories

Wittman D. Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories. American Political Science Review. 1983;77(1):142–157. doi:10.2307/1956016

work page doi:10.2307/1956016 1983
[15]

Spatial Equilibrium with Entry

Palfrey TR. Spatial Equilibrium with Entry. The Review of Economic Studies. 1984;51(1):139. doi:10.2307/2297710

work page doi:10.2307/2297710 1984
[16]

Spatial Models of Party Competition

Stokes DE. Spatial Models of Party Competition. The American Political Science Review. 1963;57(2):368–377

work page 1963
[17]

Downs and Two-Party Convergence

Grofman B. Downs and Two-Party Convergence. Annual Review of Political Science. 2004;7(Volume 7, 2004):25–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104711

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104711 2004
[18]

A Theory of the Calculus of Voting

Riker WH, Ordeshook PC. A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. The American Political Science Review. 1968;62(1):25–42

work page 1968
[19]

A Hotelling-Downs Framework for Party Nominees

Harrenstein P, Lisowski G, Sridharan R, Turrini P. A Hotelling-Downs Framework for Party Nominees. In: 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 20201). Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. p. 593–601

work page 2021
[20]

Party Competition: An Agent-Based Model

Laver M, Sergenti E. Party Competition: An Agent-Based Model. Princeton University Press; 2012

work page 2012
[21]

Statistical Physics of Social Dynamics

Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V. Statistical Physics of Social Dynamics. Rev Mod Phys. 2009;81:591–646. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.591

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.591 2009
[22]

Application of statistical physics to politics

Galam S. Application of statistical physics to politics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 1999;274(1-2):132–139. doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(99)00320-9

work page doi:10.1016/s0378-4371(99)00320-9 1999
[23]

Preventing Extreme Polarization of Political Attitudes

Axelrod R, Daymude JJ, Forrest S. Preventing Extreme Polarization of Political Attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(50):e2102139118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2102139118

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2102139118 2021
[24]

Party Strategies: Valence versus Position

Magyar A, Wagner S, Zur R. Party Strategies: Valence versus Position. In: Carter N, Keith D, Sindre GM, Vasilopoulou S, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties. Routledge; 2023. p. 199–210

work page 2023
[25]

Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections

Adams J, Merrill S. Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections. The Journal of Politics. 2003;65(1):161–189. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00008. May 12, 2026 17/18

work page doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00008 2003
[26]

The Journal of Chemical Physics21(6), 1087–1092 (1953) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A W, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1953;21(6):1087–1092. doi:10.1063/1.1699114

work page doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953
[27]

Does voter polarisation induce party extremism? The moderating role of abstention

Dreyer P, Bauer J. Does voter polarisation induce party extremism? The moderating role of abstention. West European Politics. 2019;42(4):824–847. doi:10.1080/01402382.2019.1566852

work page doi:10.1080/01402382.2019.1566852 2019
[28]

Primary Election Systems and Candidate Deviation

Westley C, Calcagno PT, Ault R. Primary Election Systems and Candidate Deviation. Eastern Economic Journal. 2004;30(3):365–376

work page 2004
[29]

Political Polarisation Compared: Creating the Comparative Political Polarisation Index

van der Veen O. Political Polarisation Compared: Creating the Comparative Political Polarisation Index. European Political Science. 2023;22(2):260–280

work page 2023
[30]

Global Dataset on Turnout (GD-Turnout); 2023

Martinez i Coma F, Leiva Van De Maele D. Global Dataset on Turnout (GD-Turnout); 2023

work page 2023
[31]

Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation

Rogowski JC. Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science. 2014;58(2):479–494. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12059

work page doi:10.1111/ajps.12059 2014
[32]

Voter Turnout and Electoral Polarisation: Evidence from the Dutch General Elections; 2024

Yussef AA, Heyndels B. Voter Turnout and Electoral Polarisation: Evidence from the Dutch General Elections; 2024

work page 2024
[33]

The Mobilising Effect of Political Choice

Hobolt SB, Hoerner JM. The Mobilising Effect of Political Choice. European Journal of Political Research. 2020;59(2):229–247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12353

work page doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12353 2020
[34]

The Impact of Party Polarization and Postmaterialism on Voter Turnout

Crepaz MML. The Impact of Party Polarization and Postmaterialism on Voter Turnout. European Journal of Political Research. 1990;18(2):183–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00228.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00228.x 1990
[35]

Polarization, Number of Parties, and Voter Turnout: Explaining Turnout in 26 OECD Countries

Wilford AM. Polarization, Number of Parties, and Voter Turnout: Explaining Turnout in 26 OECD Countries. Social Science Quarterly. 2017;98(5):1391–1405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12366

work page doi:10.1111/ssqu.12366 2017
[36]

Does Affective Polarisation Increase Turnout? Evidence from Germany, The Netherlands and Spain

Harteveld E, Wagner M. Does Affective Polarisation Increase Turnout? Evidence from Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. West European Politics. 2023;46(4):732–759. doi:10.1080/01402382.2022.2087395

work page doi:10.1080/01402382.2022.2087395 2023
[37]

Is Polarization a Myth? The Journal of Politics

Abramowitz AI, Saunders KL. Is Polarization a Myth? The Journal of Politics. 2008;70(2):542–555. doi:10.1017/S0022381608080493

work page doi:10.1017/s0022381608080493 2008
[38]

A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism

Aldrich JH. A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism. The American Political Science Review. 1983;77(4):974–990

work page 1983
[39]

Morris Fiorina’s Foundational Contributions to the Study of Partisanship and Mass Polarization

Levendusky M. Morris Fiorina’s Foundational Contributions to the Study of Partisanship and Mass Polarization. The Forum. 2017;15(1):189–201. doi:doi:10.1515/for-2017-0011

work page doi:10.1515/for-2017-0011 2017
[40]

Can a Science-Humanities Collaboration Be Successful? Adaptive Behavior

Blythe R, Croft W. Can a Science-Humanities Collaboration Be Successful? Adaptive Behavior. 2010;18(1):12–20. doi:10.1177/1059712309350969

work page doi:10.1177/1059712309350969 2010
[41]

The populist radical-right turn of the mainstream right in France

Ivaldi, G. The populist radical-right turn of the mainstream right in France. FEPS. 2024; 80–93 doi:sciencespo.hal.science/hal-04567687. May 12, 2026 18/18

work page 2024