Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:34:25.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Divided U.S. Senate Delegations, 1788–1996: A Realignment Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Thomas L. Brunell  and
Bernard Grofman
Thomas L. Brunell
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We maintain that the rise and fall in the number of states with divided Senate delegations can be explained primarily in terms of long-run forces of realignment/dealignment and staggered Senate elections. We test our model with election data from 1788–1996 rather than only the post–World War II period, which was common in previous research. We show that a large number of divided Senate delegations is not new; indeed, the highest percentage occurred in 1830. Exactly as predicted by our model, we find a cyclical pattern in divided Senate delegations that is tied to realigning epochs. Our analysis also calls attention to the recent decline in the number of such delegations, and we argue that this trend may well continue.

Type
Research Notes
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 391 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aistrup, Joseph A. 1996. The Southern Strategy Revisited. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Fiorina, Morris, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Why Are There So Many Divided Senate Delegations?” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alt, James E. 1994. The Impact of the Voting Rights Act on Black and White Voter Registration in the South. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Lynn, Naomi B.. 1973. “Switched Seat Congressional Districts: Their Effects on Party Voting and Public Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 17(August):528–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Courtney. 1991. Ballots of Tumult. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L. 1997. “Short-Term versus Long-Term Forces in U.S. Senate Elections.” Ph.D. Diss. University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. III. 1988. “Regional Realignment from an Officeholding Perspective.” Journal of Politics 50(August):553–74.Google Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. III, and Brady, David E.. 1983. “Party, Constituency, and Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8(February):29–43.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1991. “Critical Realignment: Dead or Alive?” In The End of Realignment, ed. Shafer, Byron E.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Clubb, Jerome M., Flanigan, William H., and Zingale, Nancy H.. 1980. Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. 1994. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, 3d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40(May):478–98.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(November):1142–64.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Brunell, Thomas L.. 1997. “Explaining the Ideological Difference between Two U.S. Senators Elected from the Same State: An Institutional Effects Model.” Presented at the 1997 Public Choice Conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Haynes, George H. 1960. The Senate of the United States: Its History and Practice. 2 vols. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Gi-Ryong, Kenny, Lawrence W., and Lott, John R. Jr. 1994. “An Explanation for Why Senators from the Same State Vote Differently So Frequently.” Journal of Public Economics 54(May): 65–96.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17(February):3–18.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Gelman, Andrew. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in United States House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35(February):110–38.Google Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carl. 1991. “Like Waiting for Godot, The Uselessness of ‘Realignment’ for Understanding Change in Contemporary American Politics.” In The End of Realignment, ed. Shafer, Byron. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. “The Case of the Declining Marginals.” Polity 6(3):295–317.Google Scholar
Nardulli, Peter F. 1995. “The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change.” American Political Science Review 89(March):10–23.Google Scholar
Segura, Gary M., and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 1995. “Sequential Choices and Partisan Transitions in U.S. Senate Delegations: 1972–1988.” Journal of Politics 57(February):86–100.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1991. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1994. The Decline of American Political Parties 1952–1992. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.