Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:19.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Identification and the Floating Vote: Some Dynamics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Douglas Dobson  and
Douglas St. Angelo
Douglas Dobson
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Douglas St. Angelo
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several authors have now addressed themselves to the dynamics of party identification. The meaning of such dynamics has, however, been left in some doubt. In particular, it is unclear whether changes in party attachments are best described as completely random phenomena or as phenomena exhibiting patterned time variation. This paper argues that the answer to the question depends in part on the observable consequences of changes in partisan ties. The analysis utilizes SRC panel data to describe patterns of variation in party identification and to attempt to assess their consequences for our understanding of the floating vote.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 481 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1975

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.)

Footnotes

*

The data utilized in this study were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the consortium bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here. We wish to thank our colleagues Duane A. Meeter and Kevin L. McKeough for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

1 Eldersveld, Samuel J., “The Independent Vote: Measurement, Characteristics, and Implications for Party Strategy,” American Political Science Review, 46 (09, 1952), 732–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some of the earlier work includes Lowell, A. Lawrence, “Oscillations in Politics,” Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 12 (07, 1898), 69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chapin, F. S., “Variability of the Popular Vote at Presidential Elections,” American Journal of Sociology, 18 (09, 1912), 222–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ogburn, W. F. and Jaffe, Abe J., “Independent Voting in Presidential Elections,” American Journal of Sociology, 42 (09, 1936), 186–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gosnell, Harold F. and Gill, Norman N., “An Analysis of the 1932 Presidential Vote in Chicago,” American Political Science Review, 29 (12, 1935), 967–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, for example, Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald and Miller, Warren E., The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, 1952)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., Elections and the Political Order (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966)Google Scholar.

3 Campbell et al., The American Voter, p. 128.

4 Campbell et al., Elections and the Political Order, chap. 2.

5 Ibid., chap. 3.

6 Ibid., chap. 4.

7 Ibid., chap. 7.

8 Ibid., chap. 13.

9 Ibid., chap. 14.

10 Campbell et al., The American Voter, chap. 8.

11 Campbell et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 141.

12 Converse, Phillip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E. (New York: The Free Press, 1964), pp. 206–261Google Scholar.

13 Dreyer, Edward C., “Change and Stability in Party Identifications,” Journal of Politics, 35 (08, 1973), 712–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ibid.

15 Dobson, Douglas and Meeter, Duane A., “Alternative Markov Models for Describing Change in Party Identification,” American Journal of Political Science, 18 (08, 1974), 487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 137Google Scholar.

17 Ibid.

18 Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 140Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 144 (italics in the original).

20 Dreyer, Edward C., “Media Use and Electoral Choices: Some Consequences of Information Exposure,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 35 (Winter, 1971–1972), 544–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Ibid., p. 550.

22 Ibid., p. 553.

23 Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 141Google Scholar.

24 Dreyer, , “Media Use and Electoral Choices,” p. 545Google Scholar.

25 The data to be used in this paper are from a panel study conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan during the presidential elections of 1956 and 1960, and the congressional election of 1958. A national probability sample of 1762 respondents was taken in 1956. Respondents were reinterviewed in 1958 and again in 1960. The effort yielded 1514 usable cases over the four-year time span, with a weighted N of 1966. For purposes of the analysis to be performed here, respondents who were not interviewed at all three points in time were excluded, resulting in a weighted N of 1256.

For technical documentation on SRC sampling techniques, see: Kish, Leslie and Hess, Irene, The Survey Research Center's National Sample of Dwellings (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1965)Google Scholar.

26 Throughout this analysis, unless otherwise noted, a seven-point measure of party identification has been used. The categories are: Strong Democrat, Weak Democrat, Independent Democrat, Independent, Independent Republican, Weak Republican, Strong Republican. Interparty change is denned as moving from one of the first three positions named to one of the last three named or vice versa. Stability is defined as failure to change categories in the period stated. Finally, intraparty change is defined by one of three conditions: (1) moving from any partisan position to any other partisan position while remaining within the same party; (2) moving to Independent; or (3) moving from Independent to a partisan position.

27 Converse's examination of mass belief systems seems pertinent here. In that work, he finds that many of those at the highest levels of ideological sophistication identify themselves as Independents. If the concept of political independence was integrated into such highly organized belief systems, relatively high rates of stability should be expected. For a discussion of the point, see Converse, “Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” pp. 227–229.

28 The optimal procedure for the examination of patterns of change in party identification across the entire period from 1956 to 1960 would be to hold 1956 party identification constant and examine the distribution of 1960 party identification conditioned on 1958 identification. This procedure, however, yields an unwieldy table with some 343 cells. In order to deal with this problem, Table 4 was constructed from that larger table.

29 Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 137Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., and Dreyer, “Media Use and Electoral Choices.”

31 See Converse, “Belief Systems in Mass Publics.”

32 We have no intention of broaching the implied causal relationship here. At this juncture, we really have no idea whether change in party attachment is “caused” by change in vote intention or vice versa. We rather suspect that change in both party attachment and vote occurs concomitantly as a function of changes in other partisan attitudes.

33 The test for linear trend in proportions is a weighted regression of the estimated column proportions in a 2 × c table on scores assigned to each of the c columns. For further discussion see Cochran, W. G., “Some Methods for Strengthening Common X2 Tests,” Biometrics, 10 (12, 1954), 417–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 An excellent guide to this literature is to be found in the June, 1972 American Political Science Review symposium on issue voting. In particular, see Kessel, John H., “Comment: The Issues in Issue Voting,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), 459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.