Segmented partisanship in a southern political elite

Polity

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 626-643

  Bruce, John M ^a   Clark, John A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

^b WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032105322     PISSN: 00323497     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3235258     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Paul Allen Beck, Party Politics in America, 8th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), 30-38.
2. Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley, 1960), 121, 127-28.
3. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Deull, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944); Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Social Theory and Social Structure, enl. ed., ed. Robert K. Merton (New York: Free Press, 1968); E. Wilbur Bock, Leonard Beeghley, and Anthony J. Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality: An Application of Reference Group Theory," Sociological Quarterly 24 (1983): 545-59; and Michael R. Welch and David C. Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations: An Examination of Evangelically Oriented Catholics," American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 28-56.
4. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Deull, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944); Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Social Theory and Social Structure, enl. ed., ed. Robert K. Merton (New York: Free Press, 1968); E. Wilbur Bock, Leonard Beeghley, and Anthony J. Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality: An Application of Reference Group Theory," Sociological Quarterly 24 (1983): 545-59; and Michael R. Welch and David C. Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations: An Examination of Evangelically Oriented Catholics," American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 28-56.
5. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Deull, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944); Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Social Theory and Social Structure, enl. ed., ed. Robert K. Merton (New York: Free Press, 1968); E. Wilbur Bock, Leonard Beeghley, and Anthony J. Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality: An Application of Reference Group Theory," Sociological Quarterly 24 (1983): 545-59; and Michael R. Welch and David C. Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations: An Examination of Evangelically Oriented Catholics," American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 28-56.
6. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Deull, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944); Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in Social Theory and Social Structure, enl. ed., ed. Robert K. Merton (New York: Free Press, 1968); E. Wilbur Bock, Leonard Beeghley, and Anthony J. Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality: An Application of Reference Group Theory," Sociological Quarterly 24 (1983): 545-59; and Michael R. Welch and David C. Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations: An Examination of Evangelically Oriented Catholics," American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 28-56.
7. Eleanor Singer, "Reference Groups and Social Evaluations," in Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, ed. Morris Rosenberg and Ralph H. Turner (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
8. In theory, a complex party attachment can differ for each level of the party; see Michael A. Maggiotto and Gary D. Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship in a Federal System," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 425-43. Note that this does not require that an individual's perception of the party differ by level, but simply allows that such variation is possible.
9. For example, Harold D. Clarke, Lawrence LeDuc, Jane Jensen, and Jon H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, "Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 383-407; Shaun Bowler, "Consistency and Inconsistency in Canadian Party Identifications: Towards an Institutional Approach," Electoral Studies 9 (1990): 133-45; Eric M. Uslaner, "Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's 'Two Political Worlds,'" American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 961-81; and Uslaner, "The Dimensions of Partisanship in Canada," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 455-63.
10. For example, Harold D. Clarke, Lawrence LeDuc, Jane Jensen, and Jon H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, "Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 383-407; Shaun Bowler, "Consistency and Inconsistency in Canadian Party Identifications: Towards an Institutional Approach," Electoral Studies 9 (1990): 133-45; Eric M. Uslaner, "Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's 'Two Political Worlds,'" American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 961-81; and Uslaner, "The Dimensions of Partisanship in Canada," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 455-63.
11. For example, Harold D. Clarke, Lawrence LeDuc, Jane Jensen, and Jon H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, "Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 383-407; Shaun Bowler, "Consistency and Inconsistency in Canadian Party Identifications: Towards an Institutional Approach," Electoral Studies 9 (1990): 133-45; Eric M. Uslaner, "Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's 'Two Political Worlds,'" American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 961-81; and Uslaner, "The Dimensions of Partisanship in Canada," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 455-63.
12. For example, Harold D. Clarke, Lawrence LeDuc, Jane Jensen, and Jon H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, "Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 383-407; Shaun Bowler, "Consistency and Inconsistency in Canadian Party Identifications: Towards an Institutional Approach," Electoral Studies 9 (1990): 133-45; Eric M. Uslaner, "Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's 'Two Political Worlds,'" American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 961-81; and Uslaner, "The Dimensions of Partisanship in Canada," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 455-63.
13. For example, Harold D. Clarke, Lawrence LeDuc, Jane Jensen, and Jon H. Pammett, Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979); Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, "Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 383-407; Shaun Bowler, "Consistency and Inconsistency in Canadian Party Identifications: Towards an Institutional Approach," Electoral Studies 9 (1990): 133-45; Eric M. Uslaner, "Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's 'Two Political Worlds,'" American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 961-81; and Uslaner, "The Dimensions of Partisanship in Canada," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 455-63.
14. Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart, with Alan Acock and Suzanne L. Parker, "Different Arenas, Different Attitudes: Partisan Inconsistency in the Canadian Federal System," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 465-86.
15. Most reports estimate truly split party identifiers in the United States at less than 5%; see, for example, Clarice and Stewart, "Different Arenas, Different Attitudes," 467. In our survey, less than 1% of respondents can be classified this way.
16. Philip E. Converse, "A Major Political Realignment in the South?" in Change in the Contemporary South, ed. Allan P. Sindler (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963).
17. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
18. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
19. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
20. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
21. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
22. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
23. M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, "Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government," American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 86-101. Most other researchers have adopted this measurement strategy. On the public, see Jerry Perkins and Randall Guynes, "Partisanship in National and State Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976): 376-78; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Jay Barth, "Dual Partisanship in the South," Midsouth Political Science Journal 13 (1992): 487-500. Studies of political elites include Charles D. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification in the South," Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 254-68; Richard G. Niemi, Stephen Wright, and Lynda Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification," Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1093-1103; and John A. Clark and Brad Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification," in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998).
24. Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship."
25. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisanship Identification."
26. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisanship Identification."
27. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisanship Identification."
28. Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; Maggiotto and Wekkin, "Segmented Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisanship Identification."
29. V. O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949); Alexander P. Lamis, The Two-Party South, 2d exp. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Earl Black and Merle Black, The Vital South (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).
30. V. O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949); Alexander P. Lamis, The Two-Party South, 2d exp. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Earl Black and Merle Black, The Vital South (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).
31. V. O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949); Alexander P. Lamis, The Two-Party South, 2d exp. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Earl Black and Merle Black, The Vital South (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).
32. Paul Allen Beck, "Partisan Dealignmem in the Postwar South," American Political Science Review 71 (1977): 477-96; and Charles S. Bullock, III, "Regional Realignment from an Office Holding Perspective," Journal of Politics 50 (1988): 553-74.
33. Paul Allen Beck, "Partisan Dealignmem in the Postwar South," American Political Science Review 71 (1977): 477-96; and Charles S. Bullock, III, "Regional Realignment from an Office Holding Perspective," Journal of Politics 50 (1988): 553-74.
34. Brad Lockerbie and John A. Clark, "Georgia: A State in Transition," in The 1992 Presidential Election in the South, ed. Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994); and Lockerbie and Clark, "Georgia: Two-Party Political Reality?" in Southern State Party Organizations and Activists, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Westport, Ct: Praeger, 1995).
35. Brad Lockerbie and John A. Clark, "Georgia: A State in Transition," in The 1992 Presidential Election in the South, ed. Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994); and Lockerbie and Clark, "Georgia: Two-Party Political Reality?" in Southern State Party Organizations and Activists, ed. Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman (Westport, Ct: Praeger, 1995).
36. Lockerbie and Clark, "Georgia: Two-Party Political Reality?" 157.
37. According to state law at the time, contributions totaling more than $100 had to be dis" closed, and individuals were limited to contributions of $1,000 per candidate per election. The accessibility and usability of the filings by the candidates varied widely. Some were exhaustive, others were barely more than a list of names. Accumulation of this information across all the filing periods proved to be an overwhelming task given limited resources. Therefore, we turned to a list of contributors to winning candidates that was compiled by an Atlanta newspaper. While we obviously would have preferred a list that included contributors to unsuccessful candidates as well, Georgia's state legislative races were marked by little competition in 1992, with 125 of 180 House seats and 28 of 56 Senate seats uncontested in the general election. Democratic candidates in both chambers were slightly overrepresented because of the structure of competition. In that light, our inability to survey the contributors to those who did not win seems to impose only minor limits on our ability to say something about contributors as segmented partisans.
38. See also Niemi, Wright, and Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers"; on contributors generally, see Clifford W. Brown, Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
39. See also Niemi, Wright, and Powell, "Multiple Party Identifiers"; on contributors generally, see Clifford W. Brown, Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
40. Alternatively, their greater attention to politics may make the differences between parties more salient to these elites, thus increasing the likelihood of segmented partisanship.
41. Our classification scheme is a slight variation from that of Hadley and others, in that we combine "partially consistent" and "split" partisans into our segmented partisan categories. The small number of cases in the individual categories made analysis difficult, but we found no evidence to suggest that our substantive conclusions would be any different.
42. See, for example, Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification."
43. See, for example, Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification."
44. See, for example, Hadley, "Dual Partisan Identification"; Barth, "Dual Partisanship"; and Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification."
45. Clark and Lockerbie, "Split-Partisan Identification."
46. For example, Bock, Beeghley, and Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality."
47. As a result of the largely homogeneous and elite demographic profile of our sample of campaign contributors, we have only limited ability to say anything about the demographics of segmented partisans at the mass level. Simply stated, among this subsample of political activists, there are no real and substantive differences between segmented and consistent partisans on fundamental items such as income, education, and occupation. For more on these characteristics, see John A. Clark and John M. Bruce, "Campaign Contributors in Georgia," paper presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
48. Georgia conducts nominally "open" primaries in the sense that there is no prior party registration required for participation, but voters must request a Democratic or a Republican ballot before entering the polling booth.
49. Gary D. Wekkin notes that segmented partisans cast most of the crossover votes in open primaries. Because their partisan attachments are inconsistent, he concludes that such voters are unlikely to cast "mischievous" votes; see Wekkin, "Why Crossover Voters are not 'Mischievous Voters': The Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis," American Politics Quarterly 19 (1991): 229-47.
50. Consistent and segmented Democrats were equally active in local elections, the level of politics most insulated from national party images.
51. See, for example, Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, The People's Choice.
52. Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, The People's Choice.
53. Merton and Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior"; Bock, Beeghley, and Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality"; and Welch and Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations."
54. Merton and Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior"; Bock, Beeghley, and Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality"; and Welch and Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations."
55. Merton and Rossi, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior"; Bock, Beeghley, and Mixon, "Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and Sexual Morality"; and Welch and Leege, "Dual Reference Groups and Political Orientations."
56. See, for example, the review in Singer, "Reference Groups and Social Evaluations."
57. There is very little variance in the Republicans' evaluations of Clinton's first two years in office; roughly 85% of both the consistent and segmented Republicans described his performance as poor.
58. Shortly after we completed the survey, Miller was narrowly re-elected with 51% of the vote in the face of strong Republican opposition.
59. Interestingly, both consistent and segmented Republicans placed both Clinton and Miller to the left of where the Democrats placed them. This general trend works both ways, although the degree to which Democratic respondents located Republican figures further to the right is less than the degree to which Republicans pushed Democratic figures to the left A similar result is obtained in Henry E. Brady and Paul M. Sniderman, "Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning," American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 1061-78.
60. This discussion of segmented partisans produces results much like work on the traditional measure of partisanship, which shows weak partisans as less polarized than the strong partisans of either party; see, for example, Campbell et al., The American Voter.
61. During his first term in office Governor Miller made a very visible (albeit unsuccessful) effort to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the state flag; see John A. Clark, "Explaining Elite Attitudes on the Georgia Flag," American Politics Quarterly 25 (1997): 482-96.
62. The change reaches statistical significance (p < .05, one-tailed) for ideological self-placement and three of the six policy issues: defense spending, minority aid, and the Georgia flag. The change on all items is in the expected direction.
63. John H. Aldrich, Why Parties? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 178-93.
64. See, for example, Gary D. Wekkin, Shannon G. Davis, and Michael A. Maggiotto, "Segmented Identifiers and the Question of Partisan Realignment in Arkansas," Comparative State Politics Newsletter 8 (1987): 8-11; and Barth, "Dual Partisanship."
65. See, for example, Gary D. Wekkin, Shannon G. Davis, and Michael A. Maggiotto, "Segmented Identifiers and the Question of Partisan Realignment in Arkansas," Comparative State Politics Newsletter 8 (1987): 8-11; and Barth, "Dual Partisanship."
66. John A. Clark, John M. Bruce, John H. Kessel, and William G. Jacoby, "I'd Rather Switch than Fight Lifelong Democrats and Converts to Republicanism among Campaign Activists," American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 577-97.
67. See also Brown, Powell, and Wilcox, Serious Money, Aldrich, Why Parties?
68. See also Brown, Powell, and Wilcox, Serious Money, Aldrich, Why Parties?