Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Public Choice 1-2/2018

23.04.2018

The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States

verfasst von: Devin Caughey, James Dunham, Christopher Warshaw

Erschienen in: Public Choice | Ausgabe 1-2/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Since the mid-twentieth century, elite political behavior in the United States has become much more nationalized. In Congress, for example, within-party geographic cleavages have declined, roll-call voting has become more one-dimensional, and Democrats and Republicans have diverged along this main dimension of national partisan conflict. The existing literature finds that citizens have only weakly and belatedly mimicked elite trends. We show, however, that a different picture emerges if we focus not on individual citizens, but on the aggregate characteristics of geographic constituencies. Using biennial estimates of the economic, racial, and social policy liberalism of the average Democrat and Republican in each state over the past six decades, we demonstrate a surprisingly close correspondence between mass and elite trends. Specifically, we find that: (1) ideological divergence between Democrats and Republicans has widened dramatically within each domain, just as it has in Congress; (2) ideological variation across senators’ partisan subconstituencies is now explained almost completely by party rather than state, closely tracking trends in the Senate; and (3) economic, racial, and social liberalism have become highly correlated across partisan subconstituencies, just as they have across members of Congress. Overall, our findings contradict the reigning consensus that polarization in Congress has proceeded much more rapidly and extensively than polarization in the mass public.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
It is also debatable whether these differences are the result of true attitude polarization (Abramowitz and Saunders 2008) or the mere sorting of liberals and conservatives into the “correct” parties (Fiorina et al. 2005).
 
2
Lest this possibility seem merely hypothetical, consider the classic finding that for much of the twentieth century, Democratic states had more conservative policies than Republican States, despite the fact that within every state Democratic officials were more liberal (Erikson et al. 1989; Caughey et al. 2017).
 
3
We obtained Senate roll call data from voteview.​com and assigned roll calls to issue domains using the issue codes provided by the Policy Agendas Project (Adler and Wilkerson 2017).
 
4
We used the R package MCMCpack (Martin et al. 2011) to estimate the ideal points. To reduce computation time, we sampled 100 economic roll call votes in each congress. For the social and racial ideal points, we used all available roll calls (which always number fewer than 100 per congress). For a discussion of how dynamic IRT estimates differ from DW-NOMINATE scores, see Caughey and Schickler (2016).
 
5
It is important to note that the estimates of intrastate ideological divergence in the Senate plotted in the top panel of Fig. 1 are based on split-party delegations. However, the mix of states with split party delegations has fluctuated over time (Brunell and Grofman 2018). Thus, some of the flux in intrastate ideological divergence in the Senate in Fig. 1 could be due to changes in the mix of states with split-party delegations. We have used two approaches to assess how much changes in the mix of split party delegations affect our analysis in Fig. 1. First, we have replicated the analysis in Fig. 1 separately for Southern and non-Southern states. We find similar patterns across regions, which suggests that changes in the regional mix of split party delegations only have a small effect on our estimates of partisan polarization in the Senate. Second, we have replicated the analysis of the Senate in Fig. 1 using a model that includes fixed effects for each state. This analysis purges the effect of changes in the mix of states with split party delegations by isolating the within-state trends in divergence. This analysis too shows very similar patterns as in Fig. 1.
 
6
Trends in intrastate divergence as measured by first-dimension DW-NOMINATE scores look similar to those as measured by our economic ideal points. In particular, according to both measures intrastate divergence in the contemporary Congress is about two standard deviations. This makes sense since the primary content of the first dimension has historically been economic issues (Poole and Rosenthal 2007). The main difference between the two series is that according to DW-NOMINATE, the post-1960 decline in intrastate divergence persisted longer, and the subsequent increase occurred later and less gradually than our economic ideal points imply.
 
7
Our preliminary analysis indicates that online surveys, such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, show more polarization and sorting than phone surveys. Thus, we omit online surveys in order to ensure the inter-temporal comparability of our results.
 
8
We coded the polarity of questions based on the substantive valence of the question. For example, for economic questions we examined which response option implied a larger scope and size of government. We generally dichotomized multichotomous questions around the middle category.
 
9
Our aggregate-level data limit our ability to evaluate how much these developments were driven by changes in the demographic composition of the parties versus changes in individual issue attitudes. We suspect, however, that both factors were at play. We know, for example, that in the 1960s African Americans, who were and continue to be much more racially and economically liberal than whites, became much more likely to identify as Democrats (e.g., Petrocik 1987). This compositional change, along with conservative Southern whites’ more gradual countervailing shift toward the Republican Party (Green et al. 2002, pp. 140–163), likely explains much of the increase in divergence in Southern states, especially on racial issues. On the other hand, we also know that at least some of the growth in polarization is due to individuals’ changing their issue attitudes to match their party’s positions (Levendusky 2009a; Lenz 2012), and thus intrastate divergence is likely also a product of the changing issue attitudes of individuals who remained loyal to one party.
 
10
Specifically, within each biennium, we used analysis of variance to decompose variation in conservatism across senators/subconstituencies into between-party and within-party components. The proportion of variation explained by party is simply the between-party sum of squares divided by the total sum of squares.
 
11
In addition to being a period of unusually low partisan polarization, especially in presidential politics, the 1950s were also a dry spell for survey questions that tapped into ideological differences over economic policy (see Erskine 1964, pp. 154–155). Both factors may help explain the sudden drop in the explanatory power of party in this decade.
 
12
Carmines and Stimson’s analysis was based primarily on a handful of ANES questions. In contrast, we use nearly all available data on public opinion about race during this period from 46 question series across 73 polls.
 
13
This too is consistent with the analysis of first- and second-dimension NOMINATE scores in Poole and Rosenthal (2007).
 
14
By the 1940s, for example, even as the Democratic Party in the South remained synonymous with white supremacy (Mickey 2015), state Democratic parties outside the South had become clearly more liberal on civil rights than their Republican counterparts (Feinstein and Schickler 2008).
 
15
See Hopkins (2018) for a detailed description of how voting patterns in state elections have also nationalized in recent decades.
 
16
There is an active debate about how much of the growing geographic concentration of each party’s coalitions is due to residential sorting (Bonica et al. 2017; Mummolo and Nall 2017), cohort effects (Ghitza and Gelman 2014), racial polarization and geographic changes in the distribution of minority populations (Bowler and Segura 2011), or individuals’ switching parties (e.g., Levendusky 2009a; Highton and Kam 2011).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.CrossRef Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 718–737.CrossRef Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 718–737.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Aldrich, J. H., Montgomery, J. M., & Sparks, D. B. (2014). Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses. Political Analysis, 22(4), 435–456.CrossRef Aldrich, J. H., Montgomery, J. M., & Sparks, D. B. (2014). Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses. Political Analysis, 22(4), 435–456.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M, Jr. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRef Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M, Jr. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr., & Stewart, C, I. I. I. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159.CrossRef Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr., & Stewart, C, I. I. I. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542.CrossRef Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bowler, S., & Segura, G. (2011). The future is ours: Minority politics, political behavior, and the multiracial era of American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Bowler, S., & Segura, G. (2011). The future is ours: Minority politics, political behavior, and the multiracial era of American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Broockman, D. E. (2016). Approaches to studying policy representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 181–215.CrossRef Broockman, D. E. (2016). Approaches to studying policy representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 181–215.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Caughey, D., & Schickler, E. (2016). Substance and change in congressional ideology: NOMINATE and its alternatives. Studies in American Political Development, 30(2), 128–146.CrossRef Caughey, D., & Schickler, E. (2016). Substance and change in congressional ideology: NOMINATE and its alternatives. Studies in American Political Development, 30(2), 128–146.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Caughey, D., & Warshaw, C. (2015). Dynamic estimation of latent opinion using a hierarchical group-level IRT model. Political Analysis, 23(2), 197–211.CrossRef Caughey, D., & Warshaw, C. (2015). Dynamic estimation of latent opinion using a hierarchical group-level IRT model. Political Analysis, 23(2), 197–211.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Caughey, D., Xu, Y., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Incremental democracy: The policy effects of partisan control of state government. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1342–1358.CrossRef Caughey, D., Xu, Y., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Incremental democracy: The policy effects of partisan control of state government. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1342–1358.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Clinton, J. D. (2006). Representation in Congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 397–409.CrossRef Clinton, J. D. (2006). Representation in Congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 397–409.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353.CrossRef Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Zurück zum Zitat Epstein, L. D. (1982). Party confederations and political nationalization. Publius, 12(4), 67–102.CrossRef Epstein, L. D. (1982). Party confederations and political nationalization. Publius, 12(4), 67–102.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1989). Political parties, public opinion, and state policy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 729–750.CrossRef Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1989). Political parties, public opinion, and state policy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 729–750.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (2006). Public opinion in the states: A quarter century of change and stability. In J. E. Cohen (Ed.), Public opinion in state politics (pp. 229–253). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRef Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (2006). Public opinion in the states: A quarter century of change and stability. In J. E. Cohen (Ed.), Public opinion in state politics (pp. 229–253). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Erskine, H. G. (1964). The polls: Some gauges of conservatism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(1), 154–168.CrossRef Erskine, H. G. (1964). The polls: Some gauges of conservatism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(1), 154–168.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Feinstein, B. D., & Schickler, E. (2008). Platforms and partners: The civil rights realignment reconsidered. Studies in American Political Development, 22(1), 1–31.CrossRef Feinstein, B. D., & Schickler, E. (2008). Platforms and partners: The civil rights realignment reconsidered. Studies in American Political Development, 22(1), 1–31.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Longman Publishing Group Harlow. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Longman Publishing Group Harlow.
Zurück zum Zitat Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war?. New York: Pearson Longman. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war?. New York: Pearson Longman.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler, A., & Hall, A. B. (2016). The elusive quest for convergence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 131–149.CrossRef Fowler, A., & Hall, A. B. (2016). The elusive quest for convergence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 131–149.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler, A., & Hall, A. B. (2017). Long-term consequences of election results. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 351–372.CrossRef Fowler, A., & Hall, A. B. (2017). Long-term consequences of election results. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 351–372.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25–46.CrossRef Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25–46.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Highton, B., & Kam, C. D. (2011). The long-term dynamics of partisanship and issue orientations. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 202–215.CrossRef Highton, B., & Kam, C. D. (2011). The long-term dynamics of partisanship and issue orientations. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 202–215.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hill, S. J., & Tausanovitch, C. (2015). A disconnect in representation? Comparison of trends in congressional and public polarization. Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1058–1075.CrossRef Hill, S. J., & Tausanovitch, C. (2015). A disconnect in representation? Comparison of trends in congressional and public polarization. Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1058–1075.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hopkins, D. (2018). The increasingly United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Hopkins, D. (2018). The increasingly United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hopkins, D. J., & Schickler, E. (2016). The nationalization of U.S. political parties, 1932–2014. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, September 3. Hopkins, D. J., & Schickler, E. (2016). The nationalization of U.S. political parties, 1932–2014. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, September 3.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobson, G. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630.CrossRef Jacobson, G. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 59–81.CrossRef Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 59–81.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Key, V. O, Jr. (1964). Politics, parties & pressure groups. New York: Crowell. Key, V. O, Jr. (1964). Politics, parties & pressure groups. New York: Crowell.
Zurück zum Zitat Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.CrossRef Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.CrossRef Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lee, D. S., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.CrossRef Lee, D. S., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lenz, G. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Lenz, G. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Levendusky, M. S. (2009a). The microfoundations of mass polarization. Political Analysis, 17, 162–176.CrossRef Levendusky, M. S. (2009a). The microfoundations of mass polarization. Political Analysis, 17, 162–176.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Levendusky, M. S. (2009b). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Levendusky, M. S. (2009b). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Levitt, S. D. (1996). How do senators vote? Disentangling the role of voter preferences, party affiliation, and senator ideology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 425–441. Levitt, S. D. (1996). How do senators vote? Disentangling the role of voter preferences, party affiliation, and senator ideology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 425–441.
Zurück zum Zitat Lunch, W. M. (1987). The nationalization of American politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lunch, W. M. (1987). The nationalization of American politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10(2), 134–153.CrossRef Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10(2), 134–153.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., & Park, J. H. (2011). MCMCpack: Markov chain Monte Carlo in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(9), 1–21.CrossRef Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., & Park, J. H. (2011). MCMCpack: Markov chain Monte Carlo in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(9), 1–21.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.CrossRef McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mickey, R. W. (2015). Paths out of Dixie: The democratization of authoritarian enclaves in America’s Deep South. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Mickey, R. W. (2015). Paths out of Dixie: The democratization of authoritarian enclaves in America’s Deep South. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.CrossRef Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Paddock, J. (1992). Inter-party ideological differences in eleven state parties: 1956–1980. Western Political Quarterly, 45(3), 751–760.CrossRef Paddock, J. (1992). Inter-party ideological differences in eleven state parties: 1956–1980. Western Political Quarterly, 45(3), 751–760.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Peress, M. (2013). Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the U.S. House of Representatives. Public Choice, 156(1–2), 77–94.CrossRef Peress, M. (2013). Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the U.S. House of Representatives. Public Choice, 156(1–2), 77–94.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Petrocik, J. R. (1987). Realignment: New party coalitions and the nationalization of the South. Journal of Politics, 49(2), 347–375.CrossRef Petrocik, J. R. (1987). Realignment: New party coalitions and the nationalization of the South. Journal of Politics, 49(2), 347–375.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Poole, K. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 954–993.CrossRef Poole, K. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 954–993.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079.CrossRef Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384.CrossRef Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology & Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology & Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Zurück zum Zitat Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party government. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party government. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Schickler, E. (2013). New Deal liberalism and racial liberalism in the mass public, 1937–1968. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 75–98.CrossRef Schickler, E. (2013). New Deal liberalism and racial liberalism in the mass public, 1937–1968. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 75–98.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shafer, B. E., & Claggett, W. J. M. (1995). The two majorities: The issue context of modern American politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Press. Shafer, B. E., & Claggett, W. J. M. (1995). The two majorities: The issue context of modern American politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Shor, B., & McCarty, N. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 530–551.CrossRef Shor, B., & McCarty, N. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 530–551.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Stimson, J. A. (2015). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Stimson, J. A. (2015). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2013). Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures and cities. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 330–342.CrossRef Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2013). Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures and cities. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 330–342.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703.CrossRef Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States
verfasst von
Devin Caughey
James Dunham
Christopher Warshaw
Publikationsdatum
23.04.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Public Choice / Ausgabe 1-2/2018
Print ISSN: 0048-5829
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0543-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1-2/2018

Public Choice 1-2/2018 Zur Ausgabe