Local Political Context and Polarization in the Electorate: Evidence from the 2004 Presidential Election

Authors

  • George Hawley University of Houston

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2013.34.0.21-45

Abstract

Political scientists have long examined the degree to which the American electorate exhibits partisan and ideological polarization and sought to explain the causal mechanism driving this phenomenon. Some scholars have argued that there is an increasing degree of geographic polarization of the electorate—that is, a large percentage of geographic units are becoming less politically heterogeneous. In this study, I argue that the two trends are related. Using individual-level data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, I examine the relationship between local partisan context and political attitudes using multilevel models. I find that, as the local political context becomes less competitive in national elections; those in the local political majority become more ideologically extreme, strengthen their partisan attachments, and hold more polarized attitudes toward the two major-party presidential candidates. These findings suggest that the growing geo- graphic partisan segregation of the electorate is an important source of ideological and partisan polarization.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate. Journal of Politics 60:634-652. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647642

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2002. Ideological Realignment and U.S. Congressional Elections. Pp. 203-213 in Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd ed., eds. Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2006. Don't Blame Redistricting for Uncompetitive Elections. PS: Political Science and Politics 39:87- 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096506060185

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2008. Is Polarization a Myth? Journal of Politics 70:542-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493

Abrams, Samuel J., and Morris P. Fiorina. 2012. 'The Big Sort' that Wasn't: A Skeptical Reexamination. PS: Political Science and Politics 45:203-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096512000017

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday.

Bafumi, Joseph, and Robert Shapiro. 2009. A New Partisan Voter. Journal of Politics 71(1):1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090014

Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bishop, Bill, and Robert G. Cushing. 2008. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like- Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. New York: Mariner Books.

Books, John, and Charles Prysby. 1988. Studying Contextual Effects on Political Behavior: A Research Inventory and Agenda. American Politics Research 16:211-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004478088016002005

Brewer, Mark D., and Jeffrey M. Stonecash. 2007. Split: Class and Cultural Divides in American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483330532

Brown, Thad. 1988. Migration and Politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Chinni, Dante, and James Gimpel. 2010. Our Patchwork Nation: The Surprising Truth about the 'Real' America. New York: Gotham Books.

Converse, Philip. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: The Free Press.

DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. 1996. Have Americans' Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102:690-755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230995

Dodsen, Kyle. 2010. The Return of the American Voter? Party Polarization and Voting Behavior, 1988 to 2004. Sociological Perspectives 53(3):443-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2010.53.3.443

Evans, John H. 1997. Worldviews or Social Groups as the Source of Moral Attitudes: Implications for the Culture Wars Thesis. Sociological Forum 12:371-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024625210910

Evans, John H. 2002. Polarization in Abortion Attitudes in the U.S. Religious Traditions 1972-1998. Sociological Forum 17:397-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019627006778

Evans, John H. 2003. Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update. Social Science Quarterly 84:71-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005

Finifter, Ada W. 1974. The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants. American Political Science Review 68:607-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400117423 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1959508

Fiorina, Morris, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.

Fischer, Claude S., and Greggor Mattson. 2009. Is America Fragmenting? Annual Review of Sociology 35:435-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115909

Gelman, Andrew, David Park, Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi, and Jeronimo Cortina. 2008. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gershkoff, Amy R. 2009. The Marriage Gap. In Beyond Red State, Blue State: Electoral Gap in the Twenty-First Century American Electorate, eds. Laura Olson and John C. Green. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gimpel, James G., Frances E. Lee, and Joshua Kaminski. 2006. The Political Geography of Campaign Contributions in American Politics. Journal of Politics. 68:3:626-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00450.x

Gimpel, James G., and Jason E. Schuknecht. 2003. Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.17820

Gimpel, James G., and Dante Chinni. 2010. Our Patchwork Nation: The Surprising Truth about the "Real" America. New York: Penguin Books.

Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 95:619-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003045

Huckfeldt, Robert. 1983. Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choice. American Journal of Sociology 89:651-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227908

Huckfeldt, Robert, J. Mendez, and T. Osborne. 2004. Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks. Political Psychology 25:65-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x

Hunter, James D. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.

Jennings, M. Kent, and Gregory B. Markus. 1984. Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study. American Political Science Review 78:1000-1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1955804

Jones, Dale E., Sherri Doty, Clifford Grammich, James E. Horsch, Richard Houseal, Mac Lynn, John P. Marcum, Kenneth M. Sanchagrin, Richard H. Taylor. 2002. Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000. Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center.

Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E, Wolfinger. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Key, V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Klinkner, Philip A. 2004. Red and Blue Scare: The Continuing Diversity of the American Electoral Landscape. The Forum Vol. 2, Article 2

Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Mensasce Horowitz. 2006. Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9:83-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138

Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226473673.001.0001

MacKuen, Michael, and Courtney Brown. 1987. Political Context and Attitude Change. American Political Science Review 81:471-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961962

McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McClerking, Harwood K. 2009. Racial and Ethnic Gaps. In Beyond Red State, Blue State: Electoral Gaps in the Twenty-First Century American Electorate, eds. Laura Olson and John C. Green. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

McClurg, Scott D. 2006. Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of Neighborhood Context, Disagreement and Political Talk on Electoral Participation. Political Behavior 28(4):349-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9015-4

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

McVeigh, Rory, and Juliana M. Sobolewski. 2007. Red Counties, Blue Counties, and Occupation Segregation by Race and Sex. American Journal of Sociology 113(2): 446-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/518872

Miller, Warren E. 1956. One-Party Politics and the Voter. American Political Science Review 50(3):707-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1951554

Mollenhorst, Gerald, Beate Vőlker, and Henk Flap. 2008. Social Contexts and Personal Relationships: The Effect of Meeting Opportunities on Similarity for Relationships of Different Strength. Social Networks 30:60-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.07.003

Mutz, Diana C. 2002a. The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 46:838-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088437

Mutz, Diana C. 2002b. Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice. American Political Science Review 96:111-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264

Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1966. Political Attitudes and the Local Community. American Political Science Review 60:640-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952976

Rhode, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226724058.001.0001

Steenbergen, Marco R., and Bradford S. Jones. 2002. Modeling Multilevel Data Structures. American Journal of Political Science 46:218-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088424

Stoker, Laura, and M. Kent Jennings. 2008. Of Time and Development of Partisan Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 52:619-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00333.x

Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Mark D. Brewer, and Mack Mariani. 2003. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview. Walton, Hanes, and Robert Smith. 2006. American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. New York: Pearson Longman. Woodard, J. David. 2006. The New Southern Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne-Rienner.

Zaller, John. 1990. Political Awareness, Elite Opinion Leadership, and Mass Survey Response. Social Cognition 8:125-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.125

Downloads

Published

2016-09-08

Issue

Vol. 34: Spring 2013

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.