Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 544-557

  Alvarez, R Michael ^a   Sinclair, Betsy ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

California state assembly; primary election; social networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864825242     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912911411098     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abramowitz Alan I.,Alexander Brad,Gunning Mathew.Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.Journal of Politics. 2006;68:75-88.
2. Abramowitz Alan I.,McGlennon John,Rapoport Ronald B.Party Activists in Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: Institute of Government; 1981:.
3. Adamany David.Crossover Voting and the Democratic Party's Reform Rules.American Political Science Review. 1976;70:536-41.
4. Aldrich John H.A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.American Political Science Review. 1983;77:974-90.
5. Aldrich John H.,McGinnis Michael D.A Model of Party Constraints on Optimal Candidate Positions.Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 1989;12:437-50.
6. Alvarez R. Michael,Nagler J.California and the Blanket Primary.Monograph prepared for the Secretary of State of California. 1999;:.
7. Alvarez R. Michael,Nagler J.California's Open/Blanket Primary: A Natural Experiment in Election Dynamics. Cain Bruce E.Gerber Elisabeth R., ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002:107-123.
8. Ansolabehere Stephen,Hansen John Mark,Hirano Shigeo,Snyder James M.More Democracy: The Direct Primary and Competition in U.S. Elections.Studies in American Political Development. 2010;24:190-205.
9. Ansolabehere Stephen,Snyder James M.,Stewart Charles.Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.American Journal of Political Science. 2001;45:136-59.
10. Aranson Peter H.,Ordeshook Peter C.Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Niemi R.G.Weisberg H.F., ed. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill; 1972:298-331.
11. Bonacich Phillip.Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures.American Journal of Sociology. 1987;92:1170-82.
12. Bonacich Phillip,Lloyd Paulette.Eigenvector-Like Measures of Centrality for Asymmetric Relations.Social Networks. 2001;23:191-201.
13. Brady David W.,Han Hahrie,Pope Jeremy C.Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate? Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2007;32:79-105.
14. Caldeira Gregory A.,Patterson Samuel C.Political Friendship in the Legislature.Journal of Politics. 1987;49:953-75.
15. Coleman James S.Internal Processes Governing Party Positions in Elections.Public Choice. 1971;11:35-60.
16. Coleman James S.Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Niemi R.G.Weisberg H.F., ed. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill; 1972:332-57.
17. Fowler James H.Connecting the Congress: A Study of Legislative Cosponsorship Networks.Political Analysis. 2006a;14:454-65.
18. Fowler James H.Legislative Cosponsorship Networks in the U.S. House and Senate.Social Networks. 2006b;28:454-65.
19. Fowler James H.Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Boston: Little, Brown; 2009:.
20. Freeman Linton C.A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness.Sociometry. 1977;40:35-41.
21. Geer John G.Rules Governing Presidential Primaries.Journal of Politics. 1986;48:1006-25.
22. Gerber Elisabeth R.,Morton Rebecca B.Primary Election Systems and Representation.Journal of Law, Economics and Organization. 1998;14:304-24.
23. Goyal S.,van der Leij M.J.,Moraga-Gonzalez J.L.Economics: An Emerging Small World.Journal of Political Economy. 2006;114:403-12.
24. Hedlund Ronald D.,Watts Meredith W.The Wisconsin Open Primary, 1968 to 1984.American Politics Quarterly. 1986;14:55-73.
25. Hedlund Ronald D.,Watts Meredith W.,Hedge David M.Voting in an Open Primary.American Politics Quarterly. 1982;10:197-218.
26. Herrnson Paul S.,Gimpel James G.District Conditions and Primary Divisiveness in Congressional Elections.Political Research Quarterly. 1995;48:101-16.
27. Hogan Robert E.The Effects of Primary Divisiveness on General Election Outcomes in State Legislative Elections.American Politics Research. 2003a;31:27-47.
28. Hogan Robert E.Sources of Competition in State Legislative Elections.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2003b;28:103-26.
29. Jewell MalcolmParties and Primaries: Nominating State Governors. New York: Praeger; 1984:.
30. KanthakKristinMortonRebecca B.2003. "Primaries and Turnout." Working paper. New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/KanthakMort.pdf.
31. Kaufmann Karen M.,Gimpel James G.,Hoffman Adam H.A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation.Journal of Politics. 2003;65:457-76.
32. Kingdon John W.Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row; 1973:.
33. Koger Gregory.Position Taking and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2003;28:225-46.
34. Kousser J. Morgan.Estimating the Partisan Consequences of Redistricting Plans-Simply.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 1996;21:521-41.
35. Kousser ThadTerm Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005:.
36. Lazarus Jeffrey.Unintended Consequences: Anticipation of General Election Outcomes and Primary Election Divisiveness.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2005;30:435-61.
37. Madison James.Federalist 51.The Federalist Papers. 1787;:.
38. Masket Seth.It Takes an Outsider: Extra-legislative Organization and Partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849-2006.American Journal of Political Science. 2007;51:482-97.
39. Masket Seth.Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking.Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 2008;3:301-11.
40. Masket SethNo Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2009:.
41. Matthews Donald R.,Stimson James A.Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: John Wiley; 1975:.
42. McGhee Eric,Masket Seth,Shor Boris,McCarty Nolan.A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2010Washington, DC.
43. Meirowitz Adam.Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity.Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2005;17:107-36.
44. Merriam Charles Edward,Overacker LouisePrimary Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1928:.
45. Norrander Barbara.Ideological Representativeness of Presidential Primary Voters.American Journal of Political Science. 1989;33:570-87.
46. Padgett John F.,Ansell Christopher K.Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434.American Journal of Sociology. 1993;98:1259-1319.
47. Porter Mason A.,Mucha Peter J.,Newman M.E.J.,Warmbrand Casey M.A Network Analysis of Committees in the U.S. House of Representatives.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102:7057-62.
48. Ranney Austin.Turnout and Representation in Presidential Primary Elections.American Political Science Review. 1975;66:21-37.
49. Rice Stuart A.The Identification of Blocs in Small Political Bodies.American Political Science Review. 1927;21:619-27.
50. Shepsle Kenneth A.Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.American Journal of Political Science. 1979;23:27-59.
51. Sides John,Cohen Jonathan,Citrin JackVoting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary. Cain Bruce E.Gerber Elisabeth R., ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002:77-106.
52. SkeltonGeorge. 2008. "California Is Branded among a 'Dirty Dozen' on Gerrymandering." Los Angeles Times, June19. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/19/local/me-cap19.
53. Southwell Priscilla L.Open versus Closed Primaries: The Effect on Strategic Voting and Candidate Fortunes.Social Science Quarterly. 1991;72:789-96.
54. Tam Cho Wendy K.,Fowler James H.Legislative Success in a Small World: Social Network Analysis and the Dynamics of Congressional Legislation.Journal of Politics. 2010;72:124-35.
55. Truman DavidThe Congressional Party: A Case Study. New York: John Wiley; 1959:.
56. Victor Jennifer Nicoll,Ringe Nils.Legislative Caucuses as Social Networks in the 110th US House of Representatives. Paper presented at the Networks in Political Science Conference; 2008Cambridge, MA.
57. Victor Jennifer Nicoll,Ringe Nils.The Social Utility of Informal Institutions.American Politics Research. 2009;37:742-66.
58. Ware AlanThe American Direct Primary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002:.
59. Wasserman Stanley,Faust KatherineSocial Network Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994:.
60. Weber Ronald E.,Tucker Harvey J.,Brace Paul.Vanishing Marginals in State Legislative Elections.Legislative Studies Quarterly. 1991;16:29-47.
61. Wekkin Gary D.The Conceptualization and Measurement of Crossover Voting.Western Political Quarterly. 1988;41:105-14.
62. Wekkin Gary D.Why Crossover Voters Are Not 'Mischievous Voters': The Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis.American Politics Research. 1991;19:229-46.
63. Wittman Donald A.Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model.Journal of Economic Theory. 1977;14:180-89.
64. Wittman Donald A.Candidate Motivations: A Synthesis of Alternatives.American Political Science Review. 1983;77:142-57.
65. Wittman Donald A.Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Enelow J.Hinich M., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1991:66-98.