Suchergebnisse

Although extensive crossover voting in open primaries has been documented, scholars have never found empirical support for the allegation that considerable mischievous crossover voting occurs in such circumstances. Formal theorists have argued that such voting is not consistent with the voting decision logic that most voters practice, others have inferred that most voters are not equal to the sophistication of the calculations requisite to strategic voting, and still others have hypothesized that voters are induced to cross over by candidates' personalities or issues. This exploratory study presents and examines the hypothesis that mischievous crossover voting is limited because most crossover voters are segmented-partisan identifiers who at some level of the federal polity actually identify with the party whose primary they invade. Segmented partisans do cast most crossover votes, and are more likely than consistent partisans to evaluate the opposing party favorably on thermometer scales, to evaluate favorably its past governing performance, and to defect to its ticket during general elections. The hostility toward the partisan out-group, posited in The American Voter and supporting studies, thus is not characteristic of most of those who cast crossover votes.

ALTHOUGH EXTENSIVE CROSSOVER VOTING IN OPEN PRIMARIES HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED, SCHOLARS HAVE NEVER FOUND EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR THE ALLEGATION THAT CONSIDERABLE MISCHIEVOUS CROSSOVER VOTING OCCURS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS EXPLORATORY STUDY PRESENTS AND EXAMINES THE HYPOTHESIS THAT MISCHIEVOUS CROSSOVER VOTING IS LIMITED BECAUSE MOST CROSSOVER VOTERS ARE SEGMENTED-PARTISAN IDENTIFIERS WHO AT SOME LEVEL OF THE FEDERAL POLITY ACTUALLY IDENTIFY WITH THE PARTY WHOSE PRIMARY THEY INVADE. SEGMENTED PARTISANS DO CAST MOST CROSSOVER VOTES, AND ARE MORE LIKELY THAN CONSISTENT PARTISANS TO EVALUATE THE OPPOSING PARTY FAVORABLY ON THERMOMETER SCALES, TO EVALUATE FAVORABLY ITS PAST GOVERNING PERFORMANCE, AND TO DEFECT TO ITS TICKET DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS. THE HOSTILITY TOWARD THE PARTISAN OUT-GROUP, POSITED IN THE AMERICAN VOTER AND SUPPORTING STUDIES, THUS IS NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF MOST OF THOSE WHO CAST CROSSOVER VOTES.

It is possible to agree with Professor Reiter's general argument and still fault some of his data and take exception to his conclusions. There is little doubt that the original sources of the state and local parties' weakness, and of their loss of control over the presidential nominating process, preceded the party and campaign reforms of the 1970s. Reiter is not alone in arguing that the eclipse of state and local 'king-makers' slowly began to take effect earlier, as a result of the advent of civil service reforms, presidential primaries, electronic media, new campaign techniques and the nationalization of the electorate. The reforms are indeed only the latest chapter of a long-running saga.

Using a two-wave panel, this paper locates the proximate causes of the defeat of George Bush in 1992 not among the variables traditionally applied by election forecasters-economic performance measures, presidential popularity, or retrospective partisanship-but in the tactics and choices of the electoral season itself. The Bush campaign failed to secure a firm base of support, failed to generate momentum even among those predisposed to support the incumbent, and failed to recognize, then capture, the issue space most important to the electorate. As a result, Bush failed to secure a second term.

One intention of American federalism, according to Madison, was to provide different contexts into which politics might be organized. Segmented partisanship is a reflection of and a response to the differentiation of power, roles and opportunities that federalism made possible. Accepting partisanship as a collection of schemata, choice among which is contextually determined, permits us to see a greater consistency among performance evaluations and electoral decisions, on the one hand, and partisanship on the other, than a single, global schema allows.

The recognition of question-order problems has prompted a reexamination of theory and data in several areas of political behavior. The possibility of question-order effects is of special concern to the study of party identification, the original conceptualization of which has been criticized for disregarding multi dimensionality. We have yet to discover whether the sequence and/or proximity of items measuring multiple, related dimensions may influence findings. An area of research in which results may be especially susceptible to reactivity is that of multiple partisan identification. Most of the studies in this literature asked respondents a context-differentiated sequence of items about their partisan identification in national and state and (infrequently) local politics, respectively, separated only by the usual probes for intensity and direction. The responses obtained logically risk contamination by either consistency or contrast effects, as well as by salience or frame-of-reference effects generated by intervening or antecedent, nonrecursively-related items. In this study, we report the results of two experiments used to control for potential question-order effects in the measurement of multiple party identification. In the first, national and state partisan identification items were alternated in sequence in order to test whether responses to national partisan identification items structure responses to state (and local) partisan identification items. In the second, party thermometer items, national, state, and local partisan identification items, and national, state, and local retrospective evaluations of party governing performance were rotated sequentially. Generally, responses to these three measures of partisanship did not differ significantly as the order of appearance changed.

What is an independent-leaner? More than a generation has passed since the Michigan NES/CPS group established its now standard, seven-point scale of classification of partisan identifiers [Campbell, et. al. 1960]; yet, suddenly, the correct way to conceptualize the different types of independent identifiers and interpret their behavior has re-emerged as an unresolved problem for students of political behavior.