Originally coined by Butler and Stokes in their classic study of British politics, political scientists worldwide now use the term “valence issue” to describe political issues that either lack controversy or lack policy content, in contrast to a “position issue,” which is both controversial and policy-specific. So, for example, leadership and experience are considered valence issues in a political campaign because they are personality references, as opposed to policy references. Moreover, they are lacking in controversy; while voters may disagree about which candidate possesses the best leadership qualities, no one argues against electing a president who will be a good leader. Similarly, few would suggest that inexperience is a desirable quality in a candidate. In the realm of policy issues, the term is used to describe a policy or a policy goal that has such widespread popular support that it is utterly lacking in controversy. Thus, “improving our nation’s education system” is a valence issue because no one would support worsening our nation’s education system; there are not two legitimate sides to this so-called issue. Additionally, the term “improving” is not specific; in practice, it is used as a placeholder for a variety of far more specific, technical policy solutions (such as No Child Left Behind, the use of Common Core standards, the establishment of a voucher system for private schools using public funds, or even the abolition of public schools in their entirety). The absence of a precise policy leaves much to the voters’ imaginations and enables candidates to avoid alienating possible supporters by advocating a policy with which some may disagree.
In recent decades, particularly in the general election phase of a political campaign (as opposed to the primary phase), candidates have tended to emphasize valence issues over position issues in order to maximize possible votes. Valence issues offend no one, by their very nature, because they appeal to an existing social consensus. Position issues, however, tend to alienate some portion of the electorate and thus carry risk. Median voter theory suggests that a vote-maximizing strategy is one that appeals to the broadest possible segment of the electorate and blurs the candidate’s position on controversial issues, thus enabling voters to imagine the smallest possible issue distance between themselves and the candidate. This strategy only becomes irrational, according to this model, if the electorate is extremely polarized across most issues and there is no real political center.
Butler, D. E., and D. Stokes. Political Change in Britain. New York: Macmillan, 1969.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1957.