Segmented Partisanship in a Federal System

Authors

  • Michael A. Maggiotto
  • Gary D. Wekkin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1992.13.0.425-443

Abstract

One intention of American federalism, according to Madison, was to provide different contexts into which politics might be organized. Segmented partisanship is a reflection of and a response to the differentiation of power, roles and opportunities that federalism made possible. Accepting partisanship as a collection of schemata, choice among which is contextually determined, permits us to see a greater consistency among performance evaluations and electoral decisions, on the one hand, and partisanship on the other, than a single, global schema allows.

References

Alvarez, R. Michael. 1990. The Puzzle of Party Identification: Dimensionality of an Important Concept. American Politics Quarterly 18: 476-491.

Blake, Donald E. 1982. The Consistency of Inconsistency: Party Identification in Federal and Provincial Politics. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 15: 691-710.

Cain, Bruce E., John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Clarke, Harold D., Jane Jenson, Lawrence LeDuc, and John H. Pammett. 1979. Political Choice in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson.

Conover, Pamela J. and Stanley Feldman. 1981. The Origins and Meanings of Liberal/

Conservative Self-Identifications. American Journal of Political Science 25: 617-645.

Demaris, Alfred. 1992. Logit Modeling: Practical Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Elkins, David J. 1978. Party Identification: A Conceptual Analysis. Canadian Journal of Political Science 11: 419-435.

Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.

Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor. 1984. Social Cognition. New York: Random House.

Franklin, Charles F. 1984. Issue Preferences, Socialization, and the Evolution of Party Identification. American Journal of Politics 28: 459-478.

_______ and John E. Jackson. 1983. The Dynamics of Party Identification. American Political Science Review 77: 957-973.

Godwin, R. Kenneth. 1988. One Billion Dollars of Influence: The Direct Marketing of Politics. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Hadley, Charles D. 1985. Dual Partisan Identification in the South. Journal of Politics 47: 254-268.

Hershey, Marjorie Randon. 1984. Running for Office: The Political Education of Campaigners. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House

Huckfeldt, Robert. 1986. Politics in Context: Assimilation and Conflict in Urban Neighborhoods. New York: Agathon.

Hurwitz, Jon and Mark Peffiey. 1987. How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured: A Hierarchical Model. American Political Science Review 81: 1099-1120.

Jennings, M. Kent and Richard G. Niemi. 1966. Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government. American Journal of Sociology 72: 86-101.

Jewell, Malcolm E. 1983. Democrat or Republican? Voters' Choice of a Primary. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham, AL.

_______ . 1987. Dual Party Identification: Fragmentary Evidence from National and Kentucky Surveys. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.

Lau, Richard R. 1986. Political Schemata, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.), Political Cognition: The Nineteenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

LeDuc, Lawrence, Jane Jenson, John H. Pammett and Harold D. Clarke. 1984. Partisan Instability in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study. American Political Science Review 78: 470-484.

Lodge, Milton and Ruth Hamill. 1986. A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing American Political Science Review 80 : 505-519.

Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw and Patrick Stroh. 1989. An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 83: 399- 420.

Madison, James. 1938. No. 46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared. In Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, The Federalist. New York: Modem Library.

Maggiotto, Michael A. 1985. The Locus of Partisanship: A Federal Analogy. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Nashville, TN.

_______ . 1986. Party Identification in the Federal System. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

_______. 1988. Public Opinion in South Carolina. In Charlie B. Tyer and S. Jane Massey (eds.), Government in the Palmetto State: Perspectives and Issues. Columbia: Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of South Carolina.

_______ . 1991. Cognitive Structure and Attitude Contexts: Interpreting Public Opinion on Foreign and National Security Policy in the United States. In Hans Rattinger and Don Munton (eds.), Debating National Security: The Public Dimension Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang GMB H: 379-402.

Maggiotto, Michael A. and James E. Piereson. 1977. Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: The Hostility Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 21: 745-767.

Maggiotto, Michael A. and Gary D. Wekkin. 1987. Global Concepts and Segmented Partisans: Rejoining Theory and Data. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association meeting, Dallas, TX.

______ . 1988. The Proper Placement of Independent Learners in the Party Identification Scale. Midsouth Political Science Journal 9: 1-18.

_______ . 1989. Segmented Partisanship in the Electoral Context. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

_______ . 1992. Question Order and the Multidimensionality of Partisanship. Midsouth Political Science Journal 13: 498-511.

Markus, Gregory B. and Philip E. Converse. 1979. A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055-1070.

Nie, Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Niemi, Richard G., Stephen Wright, and Lynda W. Powell. 1987. Multiple Party

Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification. Journal of Politics 49: 1093-1103.

Page, Benjamin 1.1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

_______ and Calvin C. Jones. 1979. Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote. American Political Science Review 12: 1071-1089.

Perkins, Jerry and Randall Guynes. 1976. Partisanship in National and State Politics.

Public Opinion Quarterly 40: 376-378.

Petrocik, John R. 1974. An Analysis of In transitivities in the Index of Party Identification. Political Methodology. 1: 31-49.

Sabato, Larry J. 1981. The R ise ofPolitical Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections. New York: Basic Books.

Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Tompkins, Mark E. 1988. Have Gubernatorial Elections Become More Distinctive Contests? Journal of Politics 50: 192-205.

Uslaner, Eric M. 1989. Multiple Party Identifiers in Canada: Participation and Affect. Journal of Politics 51: 993-1003.

Valentine, David C. and John R. Van Wingen. 1980. Partisanship, Independence, and Partisan Identification. American Politics Quarterly 8: 165-186.

Wekkin, Gary D. 1988. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Crossover Voting. Western Political Quarterly 41: 105-114.

_______ . 1991. Why Crossover Voters Are Not "Mischievous Voters": The Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis. American Politics Quarterly 19: 229-247.

_______Michael A. Maggiotto, and Shannon G. Davis. 1987. Party Identification and Partisan Realignment in Arkansas. Comparative State Politics 8: 8-11.

Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification. Political Behavior 2: 33-60.

_______ . 1983. A New Scale of Partisanship. Political Behavior 5: 363-376

Downloads

Published

1993-01-01

Issue

Vol. 13: Winter 1992

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.