Suchergebnisse

The political systems of American states have remained, until recent years, a neglected field of study. Students of state government have found it easier to make meaningful comparisons of administration or legislative organization than to capture on paper the dynamic political forces which appear to be unique in each state and often are completely transformed by each group of personalities that wander on and off the political stage. V. O. Key's excellent study of the political forces in Southern states pointed up the lack of similar surveys of Northern states.In particular, the role of political parties in state legislatures has been largely ignored. The report of the American Political Science Association Committee on American Legislatures points out this problem and also notes that "it has been generally assumed that partisanship counts for less in most state legislatures than it does in Congress." Professor Lowell's famous study in 1901, which showed a comparatively low level of party voting in all of the five states he studied except New York, provided the empirical evidence for a conclusion that has been widely shared by later writers.

An analysis of voting patterns in the lower houses of legislatures in nine southern and border states from 1968 to 1986 shows that the Republican party has benefitted from the use of single-member districting. The Republican ratio of seats to votes has been consistently higher in single-member than in multimember districts, though the magnitude of that difference varies considerably from state to state. The Republican seats/votes ratio in particular types of districts varies from state to state, however, depending on several other variables such as the size of the Republican vote and those factors that affect the slope of the regression between votes and seats.

Krassa and Combs raise some questions about our analysis of the effects of districting on Republican representation in southern legislatures. They point out that one of the consequences of changes in the districting system may be to affect turnout, particularly if the new districts reduce the minority party's chances of winning a seat. This is obviously true, and it is worth emphasizing. A related point, which we have made, is the difficulty of measuring turnout accurately in those free-for-all multimember districts where one party runs less than a complete slate of candidates. The problem is that we do not know how many voters cast all the votes they are entitled to.

A SURVEY OF PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE LOWER HOUSES OF 11 SOUTHERN AND BORDER STATES (1968-1986) SHOWS THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH RATE OF RENOMINATION AND REELECTION FOR THOSE INCUMBENTS WHO RUN AND THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION ARE UNOPPOSED IN THE PRIMARY, THE GENERAL ELECTION, OR BOTH. THOSE RUNNING IN MULTIMEMBER FREE-FOR-ALL DISTRICTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE SOME OPPOSITION THAN THOSE IN SINGLE-MEMBER OR MULTIMEMBER POSITION DISTRICTS. THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE OVER THE 20-YEAR PERIOD IN THE PROPORTION OF INCUMBENTS WHO ARE UNOPPOSED IN ONE OR BOTH ELECTIONS. ALTHOUGH REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN DEMOCRATS TO HAVE GENERAL ELECTION OPPOSITION, THERE HAS BEEN A SURPRISINGLY LARGE INCREASE OVER TIME IN THE PROPORTION OF REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS REELECTED WITHOUT OPPOSITION.

This study, based on surveys of legislators in South Dakota, Texas, and Kentucky, measures the members' perceptions of the goals of reforms adopted a few years ago in the legislatures of these states. It shows that there are large differences among members in their perception of goals—differences not generally explained by party or faction, members' status (chairmanships), or seniority. Reforms are more likely to be associated with transitive than with reflective goals; that is, they are related to the legislature and its environment and are not internally oriented.