Suchergebnisse

Studies of voting behaviour have been dominated by the Anglo-American experience. With more complex institutional contexts there is reason to expect more complex voter behaviour. The Irish STV system allows voters to choose more than one candidate from more than one party. Examines what Michigan-style party identification should look like under such an electoral system. (SJK)

THE PRESENT ANALYSIS USES DATA FROM 1974 AND 1981 U. S. CROSS SECTIONS, WHICH INCORPORATE A PANEL, TO COMPARE THE STANDARD NES MEASURE OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION (ID) WITH A MEASURE OF PARTISANSHIP DERIVED FROM A PARTY CLOSENESS QUESTION WIDELY EMPLOYED IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH. IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE TWO SCALES ARE EXAMINED BY TRANSFORMING THE CLOSENESS MEASURE INTO A SCALE OF VERY CLOSE, FAIRLY CLOSE, NOT VERY CLOSE, AND NO PREFERENCE CORRESPONDING TO THE SEVEN-POINT ID SCALE. THE SCALES ARE HIGHLY CORRELATED AND ARE SIMILAR IN THEIR RELIABILITY. MORE THAN 75% OF THE "INDEPENDENTS" IN THE ID SCALE CHOOSE A PARTY IN THE CLOSENESS VERSION, AND OVER HALF OF THESE SELECT THE "FAIRLY CLOSE" CATEGORY. RESPONDENTS DO NOT VOLUNTEER THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENTS WHEN THAT ALTERNATIVE IS NOT STATED IN THE QUESTION.

Party identification and core political values are central elements in the political belief systems of ordinary citizens. Are these predispositions related to one another? Does party identification influence core political values or are partisan identities grounded in such values? This article draws upon theoretical works on partisan information processing and value‐based reasoning to derive competing hypotheses about whether partisanship shapes political values or political values shape partisanship. The hypotheses are tested by using structural equation modeling techniques to estimate dynamic models of attitude stability and constraint with data from the 1992–94–96 National Election Study panel survey. The analyses reveal that partisan identities are more stable than the principles of equal opportunity, limited government, traditional family values, and moral tolerance; party identification constrains equal opportunity, limited government, and moral tolerance; and these political values do not constrain party identification.

Objective. Given that the group aspect of party identification forms a central, yet largely unexplored element of American partisanship, social identity theory presents a compelling social-psychological theory of group belonging through which to reinterpret the contemporary understanding of partisanship. Methods. Using a mail survey of 302 randomly selected Franklin County, OH, residents, levels of social identification with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, & political independents are measured using the Identification with a Psychological Group (IDPG) scale. Scores on the IDPG are used to predict attitudes toward parties & the consistency of partisan behavior. Results. Levels of partisan social identity proved to be significant predictors of political party ratings, ideology, & party activities, even when taking traditional measures of partisan strength into account. Conclusions. Social identity is a fundamental aspect of partisanship, which, when measured, can lead to superior prediction & understanding of related political attitudes & behaviors. 4 Tables, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

Objective.Given that the group aspect of party identification forms a central, yet largely unexplored element of American partisanship, social identity theory presents a compelling social‐psychological theory of group belonging through which to reinterpret the contemporary understanding of partisanship.Methods.Using a mail survey of 302 randomly selected Franklin County, Ohio residents, levels of social identification with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and political independents are measured using the Identification with a Psychological Group (IDPG) scale. Scores on the IDPG are used to predict attitudes toward parties and the consistency of partisan behavior.Results.Levels of partisan social identity proved to be significant predictors of political party ratings, ideology, and party activities, even when taking traditional measures of partisan strength into account.Conclusions.Social identity is a fundamental aspect of partisanship, which, when measured, can lead to superior prediction and understanding of related political attitudes and behaviors.

Data from the National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) show that during the 2004 presidential election campaign, party affiliation was not entirely stable. The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrowed, continuing a pattern evident in the 2000 NAES. However, the Democrats retained their edge in party identification. Demographically, Republican party identification grew most among white evangelical Protestants. Slight gains were made among men and women. An analysis of party breakdown by state shows Republicans made significant gains in southern states but also grew in Maine and Oregon. The Democratic party made gains in a handful of states around the country.

Data from the National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) show that during the 2004 presidential election campaign, party affiliation was not entirely stable. The gap between Democrats & Republicans narrowed, continuing a pattern evident in the 2000 NAES. However, the Democrats retained their edge in party identification. Demographically, Republican party identification grew most among white evangelical Protestants. Slight gains were made among men & women. An analysis of party breakdown by state shows Republicans made significant gains in southern states but also grew in Maine & Oregon. The Democratic party made gains in a handful of states around the country. 5 Tables, 1 Figure, 1 Appendix, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

However one wishes to characterize Walter Mondale's campaign for the presidency, his loss was only the latest in a series of Democratic presidential candidate defeats beginning in 1968. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey got 43 percent of the popular vote. In 1972, George McGovem received 38 percent of the popular vote. And in both 1980 and 1984, the Democratic presidential tickets got 41 percent of the popular vote. Only in 1976 did a Democratic presidential candidate receive a (very slim) majority of the popular votes cast. Indeed, Democratic presidential candidates have received only 42 percent of the total votes cast between 1968 and 1984.Although Democratic presidential candidates have not been faring well for 16 years, party identification has remained about the same—with the Democrats as the majority party. Until 1984. And that is what makes the 1984 election interesting, for in this election the voters finally seemed to change their party identification to correspond with what now appears to be their habit of electing Republican presidents.In 1980, when Jimmy Carter received the same proportion of the total votes cast as did Walter Mondale in 1984, self-styled Democrats were still in the majority. But, by 1984, Republicans and Democrats were at a virtual tie nationwide, as these figures from NBC News election day voter polls demonstrate.