Suchergebnisse

Since 1978, the vote reported for House incumbents in the American National Election Studies (NES) has been significantly higher than the actual incumbents' vote in the districts surveyed; in NES surveys before 1978, the reported vote was much closer to the actual vote. The prime suspect for the source of this bias is the new question format introduced in 1978 & used in all subsequent studies. We document the problem & review the results of several question-wording experiments that confirm the superior accuracy of a format that does not mention the candidates' names over the ballot format currently in use. We also find evidence that a modified version of the ballot format may reduce the pro-incumbent bias, so that improvement may be possible without a major interruption of the post-1978 NES times series. 6 Tables, 2 Figures, 7 References. Adapted from the source document.

GARY JACOBSON HAS SUGGESTED THAT INCREASED VOTE PROPORTIONS FOR INCUMBENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' CANDIDATES DURING THE 1960'S AND 1970'S HAVE NOT PRODUCED GREATER ELECTORAL SAFETY, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF GREATER OBSERVED VOLATILITY IN INTER-ELECTION VOTE SWINGS OCCURRING DURING THE SAME ERA. USING DATA ON HOUSE ELECTIONS FROM 1824 TO 1978, THE AUTHORS OF THIS PAPER FIND THAT BOTH "MARGINAL" AND "SAFE" INCUMBENTS WERE MUCH MORE VULNERABLE TO ELECTORAL DEFEAT DURING THE 19TH CENTURY THAN DURING THE 20TH CENTURY. THIS PATTERN SEEMS TO BE EXPLAINED BY GREATER HOMOGENEITY OF INTER-ELECTION VOTE SWINGS DURING THE 20TH CENTURY. OVERALL, THE RESULTS LEND STRONG SUPPORT TO JACOBSON'S ASSERTION THAT THE MEANING OF ELECTORAL MARGINALITY VARIES SUBSTANTIALLY OVER TIME.

What factors best account for the 1974 congressional election results? Were the Democratic party gains in House seats due mainly to the behavior of "strategic politicians" who sought or accepted candidacies and raised effective campaign war chests? Or were the Democratic gains due more to the impact of Watergate and the economy on voters' choices? In this Controversy, Gary C. Jacobson and Samuel Kernell defend the "strategic politicians" thesis, while Eric Uslaner and Margaret Conway stand by their more conventional accounting of the 1974 election outcome.

"Why does the American political system work the way it does? After observing the strains of intense partisanship and divided government, many Americans are wondering what logic, if any, can be found in politics. With both sides of the political spectrum being so different from one another and the scales often tipping in the favor of the opposing party by a fraction of a percentage point, how can anyone work the system to their advantage? With fresh analysis of the 2022 midterm election results, the bestselling textbook The Logic of American Politics provides students the tools they need to make sense of the government they have. Weaving together historical context, contemporary politics, and a "toolkit" of institutional design concepts, the authors build students' understanding of political institutions and practices as imperfect solutions to collective action problems"--

It is with deep sadness that we report the passing of our friend and colleague Arnold Kanter on April 10, 2010, at the all-too-young age of 65. He died from acute myelogenous leukemia, diagnosed in 2007.

Enthält Rezensionen u.a. von: The politics of divided government. / Eds.: Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell. - Boulder/Colo. : Westview Press, 1991

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- CONTRIBUTORS -- TABLES -- FIGURES -- 1. An Introduction to Continuity and Change in House Elections -- 2. Reversal of Fortune: The Transformation of U.S. House Elections in the 1990s -- 3. Partisan Changes in the Southern Congressional Delegation and the Consequences -- 4. Money and Office: The Sources of the Incumbency Advantage in Congressional Campaign Finance -- 5. Majority-Minority Districts and the New Politics of Congressional Elections -- 6. Public Disapproval of Congress Can Be Dangerous to Majority Party Candidates: The Case of 1994 -- 7. The Nationalization of Electoral Forces Revisited -- 8. Representation of Constituency Ideology in Congress -- 9. Differences in Legislative Voting Behavior Between Winning and Losing House Incumbents -- 10. The Effect of Party on Issue Emphasis in the 1994 House Elections -- 11. The Electoral Connection Between Party and Constituency Reconsidered: Evidence from the U.S. House of Representatives, 1972-1994 -- Epilogue: 1998 and Beyond -- Appendix A -- Appendix B -- Appendix C -- Notes -- Works Cited -- Index