Suchergebnisse

THIS PAPER UTILIZES A NATIONAL PANEL STUDY OF TWO BIOLOGICALLY-LINKED GENERATIONS TO STUDY POLITICAL CHANGE AND CONTINUITY BETWEEN 1965 AND 1973. FOUR BASIC PROPOSITIONS ARE EXAMINED CONCERNING GENERATIONAL EFFECTS, LIFECYCLE EFFECTS, ABSOLUTE CONTINUITY, AND PERIOD EFFECTS. DATA GIVE STRONG SUPPORT FOR EACH TYPE OF CHANGE AND CONTUINITY PROGRESSION.

MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER ITS PUBLICATION, FARQUHARSON'S THEORY OF VOTING (1969) IS STILL OFTEN CITED AND SEEMS TO HAVE ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS A CLASSIC VOLUME, ALL, NO DOUBT, BECAUSE OF FARQUHARSON'S REMARKABLE INSIGHT THAT SOPHISTICATED' VOTERS WOULD ACT QUITE DIFFERENTLY FROM 'SINCERE' VOTERS. SINCE STUDENTS ARE STILL STRUGGLING THROUGH FARQUHARSON'S BOOK, IT SEEMS ADVISABLE TO COLLECT IN ONE PLACE ALL OF THE ERRORS, MISLEADING STATEMENTS, AND OTHER ASSORTED PROBLEMS FOUND IN THIS SLENDER TEXT. THIS LIST MAY NOT BE EXHAUSTIVE, BUT IT SHOULD MAKE USE OF THE VOLUME MUCH EASIER. (THE ERRORS NOTED ON THE ERRATA SHEET DISTRIBUTED BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS ARE INCLUDED HERE FOR CONVENIENCE.)

THOUGH CONVERSE'S WORK HAS GENERATED CONSIDERABLE DEBATE ABOUT ATTITUDES VS. NONATTITUDES, THERE HAS BEEN SURPRISINGLY LITTLE NEW EVIDENCE CONCERNING ATTITUDE STABILITY IN NATIONAL ELECTORATES. THE AUTHORS PRESENT DATA FROM THREE PANEL STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT THE SWEDISH ELECTORATE IS CONSISTENTLY MORE STABLE THAN ITS AMERICAN COUNTERPART. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE PATTERN OF CONTINUITY LEVELS ACROSS TYPES OF ISSUES DIFFERS FROM THAT IN THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE, WITH THE HIGHEST CONTINUITY RATES FOR ABSTRACT, 'IDEOLOGICAL' ISSUES. AN EXPLANATION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCES IN CONTUINUITY LEVELS WITHIN AS WELL AS BETWEEN COUNTRIES IS FOUND IN A STRUCTURAL FACTOR, AS SUGGESTED BY CONVERSE. THAT FACTOR IS THE PARTY SYSTEM. IN BOTH COUNTRIES THERE IS VARIATION IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTY PREFERENCES AND ISSUES POSITIONS, BUT ON THE WHOLE THE PARTIES IN SWEDEN GIVE CLEARER, MORE CONSISTENT CUES ABOUT WHERE TO STAND ON ISSUES.

FOLLOWING SHIVELY, THE AUTHORS PROPOSE A THEORY TO EXPLAIN WHY VOTERS PERCEIVE OR FAIL TO PERCEIVE CANDIDATES' ISSUE POSITIONS. THE THEORY PRESUMES THAT THERE IS A CONTINUUM OF METHODS THAT RANGE FROM THOSE THT ARE VERY INEXPENSIVE IN TIME, ENERGY, AND EXPRIENCE (E.G., GUESSING) TO THOSE THAT ARE MODERATELY EXPENSIVE (E.G., PARTISANSHIP) TO THOSE THAT ARE RATHER COSTLY (E.G., EXTENSIVE USE OF THE MEDIA). ALL THESE FACTORS ARE SHOWN TO PLAY A PART IN THE FORMATION OF CANDIATE PERCEPTIONS, BUT WITH VARIATIONS BETWEEN CANDIDATES IN WAYS SPECIFIED BY THE THEORY.