Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level: Evidence from split house-president outcomes, 1900-2004

Electoral Studies

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 62-69

  Brunell, Thomas L ^a   Grofman, Bernard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Balancing; Split districts; Ticket splitting; U.S. congressional elections

Indexed keywords

DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION; ELECTION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PARTY POLITICS; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58149329094     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2008.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aistrup J.A. The Southern Strategy Revisited (1996), University of Kentucky Press, Lexington
2. Alesina A., and Rosenthal H. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy (1995), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
3. Alvarez R.M., and Schousen M.M. Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional models of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly 21 (1993) 410-438
4. Aranson P., and Ordeshook P.C. Spatial strategy for sequential elections. In: Niemi R., and Weisberg H. (Eds). Probability Models of Collective Decision Making (1972), Charles E. Merrill, Columbus
5. Born R. Split-ticket voters, divided government, and Fiorina's policy balancing model. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (1994) 95-115
6. Brady D.W., and Lynn N.B. Switched-seat congressional districts: Their effect on party voting and public policy. American Journal of Political Science 17 (1973) 528-543
7. Brunell T.L., and Grofman B. Explaining divided Senate delegations, 1788-1996: A realignment approach. American Political Science Review 92 (1998) 391-399
8. Budge I., and Hofferbert R.I. Mandates and policy outputs: US party platforms and US federal expenditures. American Political Science Review 84 (1990) 111-131
9. Burden B.C., and Kimball D.C. A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review 92 (1998) 533-544
10. Burden B.C., and Kimball D.C. Why Americans Split Their Tickets: Campaigns, Competition, and Divided Government (2002), University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
11. Cain B.E. Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978) 639-655
12. Coleman J.S. Internal processes governing party positions in elections. Public Choice 11 (1971) 35-60
13. Coleman J.S. The positions of political parties in elections. In: Niemi R., and Weisberg H. (Eds). Probability Models of Collective Decision Making (1972), Charles E. Merrill, Columbus
14. Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Harper and Row, New York
15. Erikson R.S., Wright Jr. G.C., and McIver J.P. Political parties, public opinion, and state policy in the United States. American Political Science Review 83 (1989) 729-747
16. Feld S.L., and Grofman B. Incumbency advantage, voter loyalty and the benefit of the doubt. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (1991) 115-137
17. Fenno Jr. R. Homestyle: House Members and Their Districts (1978), Harper Collins
18. Fiorina M.P. Divided Government. second ed. (1996), Allyn and Bacon, New York
19. Frymer P. Ideological consensus within divided party government. Political Science Quarterly 109 (1994) 287-311
20. Frymer P., Kim T.P., and Bimes T.L. Party elites, ideological voters, and divided party government. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1997) 195-216
21. Gelman A., and King G. Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990) 1142-1164
22. Grofman B., Koetzle W., McDonald M., and Brunell T.L. A new look at split- ticket outcomes for House and President: The comparative midpoints model. Journal of Politics 62 (2000) 35-50
23. Kimball D.C. A decline in ticket splitting and the increasing salience of party labels. In: Weisberg H.F., and Wilcox C. (Eds). Models of Voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 Election (2004), Stanford University Press, Palo Alto
24. Klingemann H.-D., Hofferbert R.I., and Budge I. Parties, Policies, and Democracy (1994), Westview, Boulder
25. Lacy D., and Paolino P. Downsian voting and the separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science 42 (1998) 1180-1199
26. Merrill S., Grofman B., and Adams J. Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway. France, and the U.S. European Journal of Political Research 40 (2001) 199-221
27. Owen G., and Grofman B. Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: Persistent divergence of party positions. Social Choice and Welfare 26 (2006) 547-569
28. Page B., and Brody R.A. Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam War issue. American Political Science Review 66 (1972) 979-955
29. Poole K.T., and Rosenthal H. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (1997), Oxford University Press, New York
30. Shapiro C.R., Brady D.W., and Ferejohn J.A. Linking constituency opinion and Senate voting scores: A hybrid explanation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (1990) 599-623
31. Sigelman L., Wahlbeck P.J., and Buell Jr. E.H. Vote choice and the preferences for divided government. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1997) 879-894
32. Smith Jr. C.E., Brown R.D., Bruce J.M., and Overby L.M. Party balancing and voting for Congress in the 1996 national election. American Journal of Political Science 43 (1999) 737-764
33. Wattenberg M.P. The Rise of Candidate Centered Politics (1991), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
34. Wattenberg M.P. The Decline of American Political Parties. 1952-1996 (1998), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA