Search results

Benutzerkommentar

In the last two decades the empirical approach to political science has been heavily preoccupied with the study of contemporary voting behavior. Few have been sufficiently curious about or motivated by the mysteries of our electoral past to sustain a concentrated research effort in this direction. Yet, as V. O. Key often noted, a knowledge of our electoral past provides us with a better understanding of our electoral present, with how our current system has evolved and changed over time. Only recently have scholars begun to heed the call of Key and new historians like Lee Benson and Samuel P. Hays for an empirical analysis of historical voting behavior. The initial research efforts, although often crude and unsystematic in method, have prompted interesting speculation as to "divergences" in our thinking from what previously had been assumed about past electorates. They have discovered "anomalies" in several different contexts—in earlier unconfirmed theories of voting behavior, in data-oriented contemporary work on the American voter, and even among the various historical research efforts themselves. While the presence of such anomalies characterizes the first stages of any research effort in virgin territory, unraveling the apparent inconsistencies must always be part of the process of a more fully developed cumulative research program. What is the task of the moment is to examine these anomalies in light of the theories and research of Professors Burnham, Converse, and myself—the principal elements in this continuing dialogue about the proper interpretation of our electoral past.

In the last two decades of political science, there has been considerable interest in the determinants of electoral behavior. Theories have been developed and tested on the sociological, psychological, and political antecedents of the vote. Virtually neglected in this search for determinants have been the institutional or structural properties of the electoral system itself. With a few notable exceptions, such factors as electoral qualification requirements, registration laws, and ballot and voting systems have not generated much research enthusiasm. These institutional properties, however, provide the framework within which the effects of other independent variables must be judged. This applies to all basic electoral research—whether time specific or longitudinal—but especially to the latter. Too often longitudinal research tries to trace the causes of changing voting patterns without taking into account the institutional framework. A pointed example of this is Walter Dean Burnham's recent description of this country's "changing political universe" around the turn of the century—a change which he ascribed to a breakdown in party competition and consequent voter alienation, but which undoubtedly could be partially, if not largely, explained by reference to the many institutional changes in voting rules which occurred during this period. The effects of institutional properties must be sorted out if the researcher is to establish reliable baselines against which to measure the effects of other variables.The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of one such institutional property of the electoral system—the Australian Ballot reform—on the changing split ticket voting patterns of the American electorate in the 1876–1908 time period.

'The American Nonvoter' explores the impact of uncertainty in the national campaign context on nonvoting in presidential and midterm House elections from 1920 through 2012. While previous studies have focused on individuals' motivations to vote and candidates' mobilization efforts, this work considers how uncertain national circumstances in the months before the election affect whether people vote or not.

This study examines voter turnout in the American states in U.S. presidential and House elections from 1920 through 2008. A model predicts turnout as the sum of the national campaign context, state autonomy, and electoral continuity. The national campaign context encompasses conditions that prompt turnout to shift similarly across states. State autonomy involves state-specific factors that prompt turnout to vary across states. Electoral continuity involves people voting in successive elections, regardless of other influences. Testing the model finds that national campaign context effects have increased, but they vary by year, election type, and region and have been mixed since the 1970s. Adapted from the source document.

This study examines voter turnout in the American states in U.S. presidential and House elections from 1920 through 2008. A model predicts turnout as the sum of the national campaign context, state autonomy, and electoral continuity. The national campaign context encompasses conditions that prompt turnout to shift similarly across states. State autonomy involves state-specific factors that prompt turnout to vary across states. Electoral continuity involves people voting in successive elections, regardless of other influences. Testing the model finds that national campaign context effects have increased, but they vary by year, election type, and region and have been mixed since the 1970s.

Mayhew [Mayhew, D.R., 2002. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. Yale University Press, New Haven and London] dismisses realignment theory, arguing that it is unable, in general, to distinguish effectively between realigning and non-realigning elections, and in particular, to offer proof of a post-1930 realignment. We conduct a test for realignments that uses a new technique, which is blind to the conventional wisdom; a newly collected and more reliable source of electoral data; and a measure of partisanship that provides a more precise barometer of long-term support than what is commonly used in realignment studies. Contrary to Mayhew, our findings affirm the status of the classical realignments, though with a slight temporal adjustment for one (1896), while adding two others (1834 and 1874) to the canon. In the time since 1932, only one election passes muster (1994), although in this instance the congressional vote may have served as a lagging rather than a leading indicator of realignment. Realignment theory stands up well as a guide to cycles in American politics, past and present. [Copyright 2006 Elsevier Ltd.]