Search results

The 2016 election and aftermath: did Donald Trump break the mold? -- Voting and elections in theory: do we consent to a system that limits our say in government? -- Give us the ballot: why has the right to vote been so contentious? -- Turning out to vote, or not: is the youth apathy rap justified? -- Partisanship, 21st century style: can we break from the shelter of our tribe? -- Realignment redux: is there a "unifying theory" for today's electoral alignment? -- The nomination process: are party nomination contests too democratic? -- Minor parties: can a third party save our democracy? -- Campaign finance: can anything be done about big money in elections? -- New media and Russian interference: are objective assessments possible in the 21st century? (with Carlo Macomber) -- Conclusion: are there pathways for renewal?

To understand contemporary elections, scholars must come to grips with the effects of scandal. Susan Welch and John Hibbing have suggested that charges of corruption can be damaging to House incumbents and that the effects have remained constant over the last twenty years (1997). Yet a number of discrepancies remain. Why are roughly 75 percent of incumbents who are caught in a scandal returned to office—especially in today's political environment, in which we would expect voters to punish corrupt politicians? How do some weather the scandal storm while others with similar infractions are sent packing? Using the 1992 congressional check-kiting scandal as a case study, this research finds that much of the variance in the effects of charges of corruption can be explained by local media coverage. The local media's account of the incumbent's involvement in the affair appears to be a better predictor of election outcome than the number of stories written or the actual degree of infraction (the number of checks bounced). As such, I argue that local press coverage is an important element toward a better understanding of the potency of scandal and, indeed, the direction of American politics.

This article is an attempt to merge two of the more significant developments in recent American politics: the failure of our system to undergo a partisan-based realignment and the advent of service-oriented party organizations. Whereas traditional explanations of the "missing realignment" center around the attitudes of voters and/or the activities of candidates, this article suggests the parties are to blame. That is, the goals and activities of contemporary party organizations often frustrate voter attachment to parties, as well as the development of coherent platforms. Critical realignments have become a thing of the past. Yet, we have moved into a new era characterized by aggressive, national organizations, which I dub the "base-less" party system.