Experimenting With the Balancing Hypothesis

Political Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 49-63

  Geer, John G ^a   Carter, Amy ^a   McHenry, James ^a   Teten, Ryan ^a   Hoef, Jennifer ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Balancing; Divided government; Split ticket voting

Indexed keywords

EID: 1342304991     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00356.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1996). A theory of divided government. Econometrica, 64, 1311-1342.
3. Alvarez, M. R., & Schousen, M. M. (1993). Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional models of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 410-438.
4. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35-50.
5. Bean, C. S., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1998). Attitudes towards divided government and ticket-splitting in Australia and the United States. Australian Journal of Political Science, 33, 25-36.
6. Beck, P. A., Baum, L., Clausen, A. R., & Smith, C. E., Jr. (1992). Patterns and sources of ticket-splitting in subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review, 86, 916-928.
7. Born, R. (1994). Split-ticket voters, divided government, and Fiorina's policy-balancing model. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19, 95-115.
8. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket-splitting. American Political Science Review, 92, 533-544.
9. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (2002). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
10. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2001, March). Party polarization, party proximity, and preferences for party control of government: Evidence from the 2000 national elections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas.
11. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 33-57). New York: Free Press.
12. Converse, P. E. (1974). Comment: The status of nonattitudes. American Political Science Review, 68, 650-660.
13. Erikson, R. D. (1988). The puzzle of midterm loss. Journal of Politics, 30, 1011-1029.
14. Fiorina, M. P. (1992). Divided government. New York: Macmillan.
15. Fiorina, M. P. (1994). Response to Born. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19, 117-125.
16. Frymer, P. (1994). Ideological consensus within divided party government. Political Science Quarterly, 109, 287-311.
17. Garand, J. C., & Lichtl, M. G. (2000). Explaining divided government in the United States: Testing an intentional model of split-ticket voting. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 173-191.
18. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., Schickler, E., & Bruno, G. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19. Grofman, B., Koetzie, W., McDonald, M. P., & Brunell, T. L. (2000). A new look at split-ticket outcomes for house and president: The comparative midpoints model. Journal of Politics, 62, 34-50.
20. Ingberman, D., & Villani, J. (1993). An institutional theory of divided government and party polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 429-471.
21. Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The electoral origins of divided government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22. Lacy, D., & Paolino, P. (1998). Downsian voting and separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1180-1199.
23. Lockerbie, B. (1999). The partisan component to the incumbency advantage: 1956-1996. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 631-646.
24. McAllister, I., & Darcy, R. (1992). Sources of split-ticket voting in the 1988 American elections. Political Studies, 45, 695-712.
25. Mebane, W. R., Jr. (2000). Coordination, moderation, and institutional balancing in American presidential and house elections. American Political Science Review, 94, 37-57.
26. Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (1999). Midterm elections and divided government: An information-driven theory of electoral volatility. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 609-629.
27. Norpoth, H. (2001). Divided government and economic voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 414-435.
28. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 84, 231-259.
29. Petrocik, J. (1991). Divided government: Is it all in the campaigns? In G. Cox & S. Kernell (Eds.), Politics of divided government (pp. 13-38). Boulder, CO: Westview.
30. Sigelman, L., Wahlbeck, P. J., & Buell, E. H. (1997). Vote choice and the preference for divided government: Lessons of 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 879-894.
31. Smith, C. E., Jr., Brown, R. D., Bruce, J. M., & Overby, L. M. (1999). Party balancing and voting for Congress in the 1996 national election. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 737-764.