Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:01:03.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nationalization of the American Electorate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William Claggett ,
William Flanigan  and
Nancy Zingale
William Claggett
Affiliation:
The University of Mississippi
William Flanigan
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Nancy Zingale
Affiliation:
College of St. Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The conceptual meaning of and the empirical evidence for the nationalization of the American electorate is explored. Two conceptually distinct dimensions of nationalization are identified: nationlization in terms of a convergence in the level of partisan support across geographical subunits of the electorate, and nationalization in terms of a uniformity of response by geographical units to political forces. Empirical estimates for both types of nationalization are derived for the American electorate for the period from 1842 to 1970. Unlike previous scholars, we find no trend toward increasing nationalization of the vote. Possible reasons for this lack of nationalization of the vote are suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 77 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

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

Austin, E. W., Clubb, J. M., & Traugott, M. W.Aggregate units of analysis. In Clubb, J.M., Flanigan, W.H., & Zingale, N. H. (Eds.), Analyzing electoral history. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
Burnham, W.D.The changing shape of the American political universe. American Political Science Review, 1965, 59, 7–28.Google Scholar
Converse, P.E.Change in the American electorate. In Campbell, A. & Converse, P. E. (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage, 1972.Google Scholar
Flanigan, W.H., & Zingale, N.H.The measurement of electoral change. Political Methodology, 1974, 1, 49–82.Google Scholar
Katz, R. S.The attribution of variance in electoral returns: an alternative measurement technique. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 817–828. (a)Google Scholar
Katz, R. S.Rejoinder to “Comment by Donald E. Stokes.” American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 832–834. (b)Google Scholar
Mann, T.E.Unsafe at any margin. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.Google Scholar
Niemi, R., & Weisberg, H. (Eds.). Controversies in American voting behavior. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1976.Google Scholar
Polsby, N. W.The Washington community, 1960-1980. In Mann, T. E. & Ornstein, N. J. (Eds.), The new Congress. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1981, pp. 7–31.Google Scholar
Pomper, G. with Lederman, S.Elections in America. New York: Longman, 1980.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E.The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.Google Scholar
Sorauf, F. J.Party politics in America. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980.Google Scholar
Stokes, D.E.A variance components model of political effects. In Claunch, J. M. (Ed.), Mathematical applications in political science. Dallas: The Arnold Foundation, 1965, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E.Parties and the nationalization of electoral forces. In Chambers, W.N. & Burnham, W.D. (Eds.), The American party systems: stages of political development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 182–202.Google Scholar
Stokes, D.E.Comment: on the measurement of electoral dynamics. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 829–831.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J.L.Dynamics of the party system: alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1973.Google Scholar
Zingale, N. H.Third party alignments in a two party system: the case of Minnesota. In Silbey, J. H., Bogue, A.G. & Flanigan, W. H. (Eds.), The history of American electoral behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 106–133.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.