Suchergebnisse

Based on 1,235 responses to the national sample survey conducted by the Survey Res Center, U of Michigan, of the 1952 US presidential election, the analysis classifies by principal party vote the 34% who supported candidates of more than one party. Comparisons between both Democratic (Dem) & Republican (Rep) straight-ticket voters & 6 categories of split-ticket voters classified by principal party vote & by presidential choice: Split-Ticket Dem for Stevenson, on 38 behavioral & attitudinal questions reveal that Dem ticket- splitters were more likely to identify with the party they supported than were Rep, but that only Split-Ticket Dem for Eisenhower differed on many items from straight-ticket voters in their party. Caution in interpreting complex long-ballot voting is essential because survey data focus on presidential not state & local contests, & issues orientation is not a predictor of party identification. AA-IPSA.

Many recent electoral studies have been concerned with the desire, intent or ability of individual citizens to control public policy through the franchise. The techniques & assumptions of such studies are to be criticized. It appears that the orthodox view of the electorate as deliberately controlling policy through the choice of candidates applies only to a minority of citizens. It might be well to start a study of purposive voting from the assumption that well-adjusted citizens do not consider the trouble of registering as voters, informing themselves on complex affairs, determining the position of candidates in regard to these affairs, & finally getting to the polls, to be adequately compensated by the personal improvement which the act of voting promises to achieve for them. As an assumption, it is no worse than the one implicit in most studies of 'apathy' &'PO control'; as a hypo it appears more promising than the one that 'politically efficacious' citizens vote. (IPSA). Adapted from the source document.