Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:00:22.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Approach to the Study of Ticket Splitting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Barry C. Burden  and
David C. Kimball
Barry C. Burden
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
David C. Kimball
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois Universityat Carbondale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new solution to the ecological inference problem is used to examine split-ticket voting patterns across states and congressional districts in the 1988 elections. Earlier studies of ticket splitting used either aggregate data, which suffer from the “ecological fallacy” and threaten individual-level inferences, or survey data from small, unrepresentative samples. We produce more accurate estimates of the proportions of voters splitting their ballots in each state and district, which enables us to examine variations across geographical units. We also clarify the connection between ticket splitting and divided government and test several competing theories about the causes of both. We find, contrary to balancing arguments, that voters are not intentionally splitting tickets to produce divided government and moderate policies. In most cases split outcomes are a by-product of lopsided congressional campaigns that feature well-funded, high-quality candidates versus unknown competitors.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 533 - 544
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

Abramson, Paul R., and Claggett, William. 1991. “Racial Differences in Self-Reported and Validated Turnout in the 1988 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 53(February):186–97.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Shively, W. Phillips. 1995. Cross-Level Inference. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Schousen, Matthew M.. 1993. “Policy Moderation or Conflicting Expectations? Testing the Intentional Models of Split-Ticket Voting.” American Politics Quarterly 21(October): 410–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herbert. 1995. Polling and the Public, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael, and Ujifusa, Grant. 1989. The Almanac of American Politics, 1990. Washington, DC: National Journal.Google Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen. 1997. Party Politics in America, 8th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen, Baum, Lawrence, Clausen, Aage R., and Smith, Charles E. Jr. 1992. “Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 86 (December):916–28.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1994. “Split-Ticket Voters, Divided Government, and Fiorina's Policy-Balancing Model.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(February):95–115.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jacobson, Gary. 1995. “Question Wording and the House Vote: Some Experimental Evidence.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Brace, Kimball W., ed. 1993. The Election Data Book: A Statistical Portrait of Voting in America, 1992. Lanham, MD: Bernan.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 1997. “Deterministic and Probabilistic Voting Models.” 1997. American Journal of Political Science 41(October): 1150–69.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1965. “The Changing Shape of the American Political Universe.” American Political Science Review 59(March):7–28.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections an the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, and Miller, Warren E.. 1957. “The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting.” American Political Science Review 51(June):293–312.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Kernell, Samuel, eds. 1991. The Politics of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Cummings, Milton C. Jr. 1966. Congressmen and the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Davis, Beverly. 1953. “An Alternative to Ecological Correlation.” American Sociological Review 18(December):665–6.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss.” Journal of Politics 50(November):1011–29.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1990. “Roll Calls, Reputations, and Representation in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(November):623–40.Google Scholar
Eubank, Robert B., and Gow, David John. 1983. “The Pro-Incumbent Bias in the 1978 and 1980 National Election Studies.” American Journal of Political Science 27(February):122–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigert, Frank B. 1979. “Illusions of Ticket-Splitting.” American Politics Quarterly 7(October):470–88.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1996. Divided Government. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 1994. “Ideological Consensus within Divided Party Government.” Political Science Quarterly 109(Summer):287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frymer, Paul, Kim, Thomas Paul, and Bimes, Terri S.. 1997. “Party Elites, Ideological Voters, and Divided Party Government.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(May):195–216.Google Scholar
Galderisi, Peter F., ed. 1996. Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goodman, Leo. 1959. “Some Alternatives to Ecological Correlation.” American Journal of Sociology 64(May):610–24.Google Scholar
Gosnell, Harold. 1937. Machine Politics: Chicago Model. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gow, David John, and Eubank, Robert B.. 1984. “The Pro-Incumbent Bias in the 1982 National Election Study.” American Journal of Political Science 28(February):224–30.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 1997. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 2d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Ingberman, Daniel, and Villani, John. 1993. “An Institutional Theory of Divided Government and Party Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 37(May):429–71.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1997. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 4th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Rivers, Douglas. 1993. “Explaining the Overreport for the Incumbent in the National Election Studies.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Kimball, David C. 1997. “The Divided Voter in American Politics.” Ph.D. diss. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1974. “Electoral Coalitions and Senate Roll Call Behavior: An Ecological Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 38(August):595–607.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Bradley, and Voss, D. Stephen. 1996. “Racial Polarization and Turnout in Louisiana: New Insights from Aggregate Data Analysis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R., and Doherty, Joseph. 1996. “The Road to Divided Government: Paved without Intention.” In Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order, ed. Galderisi, Peter F.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, William S. 1950. “Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals.” American Sociological Review 15(June):351–7.Google Scholar
Rusk, Jerrold G. 1970. “The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876–1908.” American Political Science Review 64(December):1220–38.Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 1991. “A General Extension of the Method of Bounds, with Special Application to Studies of Electoral Transition.” Historical Methods 24(Spring):81–94.Google Scholar
Sigleman, Lee. 1991. “Turning Cross Sections into a Panel: A Simple Procedure for Ecological Inference.” Social Science Research 20(June):150–70.Google Scholar
Silver, Brian D., and Anderson, Barbara A., and Abramson, Paul R.. 1986. “Who Overreports Voting?” American Political Science Review 80(June):613–24.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe, and Canon, David T.. 1995. “Partisan Divisions and Voting Decisions: U.S. Senators, Governors, and the Rise of a Divided Federal Government.” Political Research Quarterly 48(June):253–74.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James. 1988. “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103(Winter):613–35.Google Scholar
Voss, D. Stephen, Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1995. “Preelection Survey Methodology: Details from Eight Polling Organizations, 1988 and 1992.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59(Spring):98–132.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1991. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Westlye, Mark C. 1991. Senate Elections and Campaign Intensity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989. “Level-of-Analysis Effects on Explanations of Voting: The Case of the 1982 U.S. Senate Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 19(July):381–98.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1990. “Misreports of Vote Choice in the 1988 NES Senate Election Study.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(November):543–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1993. “Errors in Measuring Vote Choice in the National Election Studies, 1952–88.” American Journal of Political Science 39(February):291–316.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.