The Impact of Minor Parties on Electoral Competition: An Examination of US House and State Legislative Races

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Impact of Minor Parties on Electoral Competition: An Examination of US House and State Legislative Races"

Transcription

1 The Impact of Minor Parties on Electoral Competition: An Examination of US House and State Legislative Races William M. Salka Professor of Political Science Eastern Connecticut State University Willimantic, CT Abstract*: Minor parties have long operated on the fringe of the American electoral scene. As a result, little investigation has been done on the impact of these minor party candidates in legislative elections. Outside of academe, however, minor parties have been gaining increased attention as American voters become more disillusioned with the options offered by the two major parties. This preliminary study seeks to examine the impact of minor party candidates on legislative elections in the states and US House of Representatives, in an effort to fill this gap in the literature. Using elections to the legislature in fifteen states and the US House during the 2000s, the study explores the impact that minor party candidates have on the vote shares of major party candidates. Specifically, the paper finds some evidence to support the theory predicting that votes for a minor party candidate are more apt to reflect opposition to the dominant major party in the chamber, rather than voter support for a minor party s platform. *Paper prepared for presentation at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting, March 22 24, 2012.This paper is a preliminary exploration of this particular issue and the results and conclusions are subject to change. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. 1

2 Minor political parties have long operated on the fringe of American electoral politics. Despite the fact that they have existed since the 1820s, running for office at all three levels of government and in all regions of the country, these parties are rarely able to field candidates that can compete with the major parties in the American two-party system (Herrnson 2002; Gillespie 1993). As a result, states have traditionally imposed barriers on who can be listed on the ballot, in an effort to limit the number of candidates participating in each election. Proponents of restrictive ballot access laws argue that such limits are necessary to prevent excessively long and confusing ballots. Minor party advocates, on the other hand, have long argued that their lack of success stems partly from discriminatory state laws, suggesting that these laws are written by elected officials from the major parties who seek to maintain their two-party monopoly on elective office (Winger 1997). Despite the persistent presence of minor parties in the United States, little research has been done on the actual impact of minor party candidates on elections. One popularly held notion is that minor party candidates occupy the extremes of the ideological spectrum, thus, stealing votes from the closest major party candidate. The fact that there are typically minor parties at both extremes may explain efforts by Democrats and s in state legislatures to curtail minor party candidates access to the ballot. While this popular notion of vote taking may seem to accurately explain the 2000 presidential election, it may not actually explain electoral support for minor party candidates in less visible elections lower on the ballot. Given methodological difficulties in determining why individual candidates receive the votes that they do, this popular notion that minor party candidates take votes from their ideologically closest major party opponents has gone largely untested. 2

3 The present study seeks to explore this question using legislative elections in fifteen states and the U.S. House of Representatives from 2002 to Using the vote shares of individual and candidates to the lower chambers in fifteen state legislatures and the US House, OLS regression will be used to determine the impact of minor party candidates on the vote shares of their major party opponents. The popularly held notion would lead to a prediction that conservative minor party candidates will take votes away from s while liberal minor party candidates will take from Democrats. The counter theory tested in this paper suggests that relatively few American voters actually align themselves with minor parties, and that most votes cast for minor party candidates reflect opposition to the major party in power or alienation from the two-party system, rather than support for the minor party. As a result, the presence of a minor party candidate in a particular race should result in a lower vote share for candidates from the major party in that chamber, regardless of whether the minor party candidate is liberal or conservative. The reader should be cautioned that this paper represents the early stages of this project, with more analysis yet to come. Minor Party Support in a Two-Party System For decades, the dominant understanding of voter behavior came from the so-called Michigan School, which was launched with the publication of The American Voter (Campbell et al. 1960). While this seminal work delved into a number of complex topics, the central argument held that voters develop their party identification while coming of age, largely through the political socialization of their parents and surrounding environment. Once party identification was solidified during an individual s formative years, this attachment was likely to remain stable throughout that individual s life. Given that most voters did not develop a well defined or understood ideology, party identification became the primary means for making political 3

4 decisions. The Michigan School, then, predicted that most voters would identify with a political party relatively early in life and cast their votes for that party s candidates from then on. While the Michigan School has been challenged in recent decades, largely for its inability to explain split-ticket and retrospective voting, the theory may remain useful in explaining voting behavior in lower visibility races, like those for state legislatures and even the U.S. House. The Michigan School has also been challenged for its inability to explain the rise of voters who were unwilling to identify with a party, preferring instead to classify themselves as independents or unaffiliated. Many scholars today argue that voters are more apt to pay attention to the perceived performance of the incumbent or party in power, particularly as it applies to economic conditions; and reward or punish those incumbents for their past performance (Fiorina 1981; Nadeau and Lewis-Beck 2001). Evidence suggests, however, that many voters are likely to rely more heavily on party preferences, even if those preferences are weak, in less visible races lower on the ballot (Flanigan and Zingale 1994). When voters have little information about candidates, many tend to return to a form of straight ticket voting. While there has been considerable investigation into voter support for major party candidates, the literature on minor party voting is rather thin. This is largely due to the relative weakness of minor parties in America s two-party system. It has long been understood that single member, simple plurality election systems, such as those used for most U.S. legislatures, produce relatively stable two-party systems (Duverger 1954). Given that a candidate must win more votes than all others in each district in order to gain representation in the legislature, ambitious parties try to appeal to the largest bloc of voters found near the center of a more or less normally distributed uni-dimensional ideological continuum of preferences. This strategy provides room for two major parties to compete for voters in the center of the spectrum, with 4

5 one leaning left of center and the other to the right. Other parties, then, are forced to occupy the ideological fringes on either side of the major parties. Voters likewise tend to act strategically, casting their votes for one of these centrist parties, with the knowledge that only a candidate from one of the two major parties is likely to win. Votes for peripheral parties are often perceived as wasted, or at least ineffective, given the low probability that a minor party candidate will receive more votes than candidates from the major parties, which would be required to win a seat. Thus, minor parties tend to attract limited attention, campaign contributions and electoral support, as voters may fear that a vote for a minor party is at best wasted, or at worst, will help the major party furthest from their preferences win the election. Those studies that have examined electoral support for minor parties have tended to focus on the top of the ticket, higher visibility races like those for president, the U.S. Senate or governor. Perhaps the most comprehensive work in this area was conducted by Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus (1996). These authors examined support for minor party candidates in presidential elections from 1840 to They concluded that support for minor party presidential candidates was mostly a function of the quality of those candidates, amounting largely to name recognition, and perceived failures or inadequacies of the major parties. Minor party presidential candidates tended to do best when voters believed the major parties were not meeting their expectations; i.e. the major parties seemed unresponsive to key issues, the economy was performing poorly, or candidates from both major parties seemed inadequate. Other studies have supported the findings of Rosenstone, et al. (1996), giving particular focus to voter dissatisfaction with the major parties and declining levels of trust in government among American voters (Peterson and Wrighton 1998; Howell 1994; Chressanthis and Shaffer 1993; Chressanthis 1990; Elliot, Gryski and Reed 1990; Howell and Fagan 1988). These studies 5

6 suggest that support for minor party candidates may be less a reflection of support for the actual platforms of those minor parties and more an expression of dissatisfaction with the constraining nature of the American two-party system. A growing number of voters feel that the U.S. system is broken, with the two major parties hopelessly trapped in gridlock, preventing them from addressing important issues of the day. This frustration with the viable major party candidates offered by the two-party system may also be partially responsible for the growing number of unaffiliated voters in recent decades (Flanigan and Zingale 1994). If a voter is dissatisfied with the major parties and their performance in government, that voter can most easily show her discontent by refusing to register with either party, abstaining from the election, or voting for a minor party candidate, even if they know little about the minor party that is on the ballot. The evidence presented in the literature to date suggests, then, that electoral support for minor party candidates might be less an expression of support for that minor party, and more a vote of protest against the U.S. two-party system in general, and the performance of the two major parties specifically. This is particularly likely in lower visibility races where voters have little to no information about the candidates on the ballot. Further, if voters are using their vote for a minor party candidate to express dissatisfaction with the political system in general, it seems plausible to expect those votes for a minor party candidate would most likely come at the expense of the candidate who is a member of the majority party at that time. The scenario might go something like this. Picture a state where a large majority of voters tend to support one major party over another, such as in Connecticut. Given that a relatively large majority of Connecticut voters tend to lean toward the Party, most of those voters are likely to vote for the candidate in the average legislative race where no minor parties are on the ballot. This option is preferable, even if a voter is dissatisfied with the political system, given the voter s 6

7 socialization in favor of the Party and against the s. When a minor party candidate is on the ballot, however, the voter is given an outlet to express their dissatisfaction; allowing them to vote against the system without having to vote for the Party. It is also likely that a left leaning minor party will have arisen in that state, in an effort to capture the votes of those dissatisfied with the Party. Thus, in states where one party tends to dominate, we might expect that the largest minor party will occupy that side of the spectrum, and votes in favor of that minor party s candidates will come at the expense of the dominant major party. In states where partisan leanings are more evenly divided, we might expect more balanced minor party representation, and support for a minor party candidate may simply come at the expense of the party that is in power at the time of the election. Overall, then, it is expected that votes in favor of minor party candidates are less an indication of support for that party s platform for most voters, and more of an expression of dissatisfaction with government, the two-party system and the major party in power. Data and Methods This study is designed to examine the impact of votes in favor of minor party candidates on the vote share of candidates from the major parties. The central question is whether the presence of a minor party candidate results in a lower vote share for candidates in the state s majority party, or the major party candidate closest to the minor party. While future work will examine the impact of specific minor parties on and vote shares, the present study will only statistically examine the impact of any minor party candidate on votes for the major parties. Data were drawn from all two-party contested lower chamber elections from 2002 to 2010 in fifteen states, and US House elections in all states. The state legislatures included are 7

8 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Texas and Utah. With Maine, only elections from 2004 to 2010 were examined, as that state did not redistrict until While these states represent all regions of the U.S. and vary in their degree of legislative professionalism, they were primarily selected because they had the highest proportion of races with minor party candidates across the country. Lower chambers were used instead of upper chambers in an effort to increase the number of districts with minor parties in the analysis. In all, thirty-two OLS models were run, examining the impact of vote shares for Democrats and s in the fifteen states and the U.S. House. The dependent variable in each model, then, is the district level vote share for the or candidates. The states were divided into four categories: strong, strong, or leaning, and leaning based on the average legislative majorities in the years examined. Strong states are those in which the Party held 60 percent or more of the seats in the lower chamber, on average, over the years examined. Strong states had average majorities of 60 percent or greater over those years. Leaning states were those where the majority averaged less than 60 percent of the seats; and in all leaning states except Maine, both parties held a majority prior to at least one election. The independent variable of interest, then, is a dummy variable indicating whether or not a minor party candidate is running in each district. Based on the theory discussed above, it is expected that the presence of a minor party candidate will have a negative and statistically significant impact on the vote share of candidates in those states classified as strong, while not significantly impacting the vote shares of candidates. The 8

9 reverse is expected in strong states, with the presence of a minor party candidate having a significant negative impact on vote shares. Again, these hypotheses are based on the theory that weakly attached voters, even those that are dissatisfied with the political system, will tend to vote for the candidate from the majority party in each state. This type of voting, in fact, is what contributes to that party holding a majority in the state. Given their political socialization to favor one major party over the other, most voters may be disinclined to switch sides completely and vote for the opposing major party. When given a third option, however, such as a minor party candidate on the ballot, weakly attached voters who feel alienated from the political system may choose to express their dissatisfaction by voting for a minor party candidate. Such a vote might represent a protest against the status quo, without requiring a voter to support the opposing major party candidate. Data on legislative races were gathered from the Secretary of States offices in each state. Data on U.S. House elections were gathered from the Clerk of the House. With the U.S. House races, elections are separated into those years in which the Party held the majority ( ) and those when the Democrats were in power ( ). As with the legislative races, it is expected that the presence of a minor party candidate will have a statistically significant and negative impact on the vote share of candidates in those elections when the s held the majority, with smaller or no impact on vote shares. The opposite is expected in the election years when the Democrats held the majority, with the presence of a minor party candidate having a greater impact on the vote share of candidates in those years. In order to have fully specified models, a number of additional independent variables were included. In the models below, dummy variables were included to indicate the presence of 9

10 a or incumbent in each district, as this would certainly impact the vote share received by either candidate. A number of district level demographic variables were also included to control for the effects of demographic variance across districts within each state, or across congressional districts. These variables are the percentage of residents in each district with a four year college degree, the percentage below the poverty line and the percent white. Data for these variables were obtained from Lilley et al. (2008) for legislative races and CQ Press (2003) for congressional races. Dummy variables indicating the year in which each election was held were also included in each model. Finally, some effort must be made to control for the specific minor parties that run candidates. It is plausible to expect that relatively liberal states, with routine majorities, are likely to be home to left-leaning minor parties such as the Green Party. Conversely, conservative minor parties, such as the Libertarian or Constitution Parties, might be more common in more conservative states. Table 1 contains data on minor party candidates running in the lower chamber and congressional races during this time period. Columns 3 and 4 show the number of Libertarian Party and Green Party candidates in each chamber, as these are by far the most common minor parties across these races. These data will be used to interpret the results presented below. (Insert Table 1 somewhere here) FINDINGS: State Legislatures Table 2 presents the findings for the states that had strong majorities throughout the 2000s. These states are California, Connecticut and New York. It should be noted that the models in all of the following tables seem to be performing well, given that the control variables that have been well established as influential in the literature, are generally statistically 10

11 significant and in the expected directions. With regard to the variable measuring the impact of a minor party candidate in races in these three states, the hypothesis is supported for Connecticut and New York. Both states had large majorities in the 2000s, and the presence of a minor party candidate was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the vote share for candidates. The same variable, however, seemed to have no impact on the vote shares of candidates in both states. An examination of the data presented in Table 1 indicates that both states had relatively low proportions of Libertarian candidates, which might have been expected to take votes from s. Neither state, however, had a majority of candidates from the Green or Working Families Parties either (Connecticut: 46%, New York: 33%). These findings suggest that minor party candidates may be providing a sort of protest option for voters who would otherwise have supported candidates. The findings for California, however, are opposite of what was expected. Minor party candidates in California seem to have little impact on the vote share for candidates from the majority. Instead, those minor party candidates seem to be taking votes from candidates in the minority. This finding may make sense, however, when considered with the data in Table 1, which indicates that a large majority (86%) of minor party candidates in California were Libertarians. (Insert Table 2 somewhere here) Table 3 illustrates similar findings in states with strong majorities throughout the 2000s. Four states: Florida, Idaho, Kansas and Utah were classified as strong states, with the results from three of those states supporting the hypothesis. In Idaho, Kansas and Utah, the presence of a minor party candidate was associated with a statistically significant decline in vote share for candidates, while having no significant impact on 11

12 candidates. This again indicates that minor party candidates may be offering an alternative to voters that would otherwise be inclined to support a member of the majority, but instead chose to support an alternative party candidate. It should be noted, however, that Libertarian and other conservative party candidates represent the vast majority of minor party candidates in each state (Idaho: 84%, Kansas: 84%, Utah: 97%) and there were no Green Party candidates on the ballot in any of these states. As with California among the strong states, Florida is an anomaly among strong states. The presence of a minor party candidate in Florida seems to detract from the candidates, while having little impact on candidates. This finding is particularly interesting given the small number of Green Party candidates on the ballot in Florida and the relatively high proportion of Libertarian Party or Tea Party candidates (67%). (Insert Table 3 somewhere here) Of the remaining eight states, four were classified as leaning and four as leaning. The results for those states leaning are presented in Table 4. Of these four states, the results from Indiana provide the strongest support for the hypothesis. The Party held a majority in the Indiana house prior to four of the five elections. These majorities were small, however, with the Democrats holding an average of 51 percent of the seats across those years. Yet, the presence of a minor party candidate seemed to detract from the vote share of candidates, while having little effect on s. The statistically significant impact on vote shares exists in Indiana despite the fact that there were no Green Party candidates in any of these races, but, 90 percent of the minor party candidates were Libertarians. 12

13 The results from Maine and Colorado do not seem to support the hypothesis. In Maine, where the Party held a majority prior to all four post-redistricting elections, averaging 56 percent of the seats, candidates from both major parties were negatively affected by the presence of a minor party. However, the effect size was substantially greater for candidates. If voters were using support for minor parties as a way to protest the majority party, then, candidates should have seen a greater negative impact when a minor party candidate was on the ballot. This is especially true given the fact that there were no Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Maine, but 67 percent of minor party candidates were from the Green Party. The findings for Colorado are more comprehensible. Despite the fact that the Democrats held a majority prior to three of the five elections, the presence of a minor party candidate had a negative impact on vote shares, while having no impact on those for candidates. Again, the opposite should have been found if voters were using their support of minor party candidates as a protest against the majority party. However, 91 percent of the minor party candidates in Colorado were Libertarians, and those Libertarian candidates may have been taking votes away from their ideologically closer opponents. Finally, the presence of a minor party candidate in North Carolina did not seem to have an impact on the vote shares of candidates from either major party. This result may be due to the fact that, while minor party candidates are relatively common in races for the lower chamber in North Carolina, those candidates tend to win relatively few votes, having a limited impact on the vote shares of the major party candidates. (Insert Table 4 somewhere here) 13

14 The results from the four states that were classified as leaning are more supportive of the hypothesis (Table 5). In three of those states, Michigan, Oregon and Texas, the presence of a minor party candidate was associated with a statistically significant decrease in vote share for Party candidates, while having little impact on the vote shares for candidates. In all three of these states, Libertarian candidates represented a majority of all minor party candidates on the ballot (Michigan: 62%, Oregon: 67%, Texas: 97%). In Minnesota, the presence of a minor party candidate had a negative impact on the vote share for both major parties, but the effect size was slightly larger for candidates. As with the other three leaning states, Libertarian candidates constituted a majority of all minor party candidates (73%). (Insert Table 5 somewhere here) FINDINGS: U.S. House The findings for congressional races provide only limited support for the hypothesis. Again, congressional races were divided into two categories, those where the Party held the majority in the U.S. House prior to the election ( ), and those that were held when the Democrats were in the majority (2008 and 2010). It was expected that candidates would lose vote shares to minor party candidates when the chamber was under control; while candidates would suffer the greatest losses in vote shares while they were in power. The results presented in Table 6, however, suggest that this was not the case. Instead, when the Party held the majority in the House, the presence of a minor party candidate was associated with statistically significant declines in vote shares for candidates, while seeming to have little effect on vote shares. This finding suggests that voters were not supporting minor party candidates as way of protesting the 14

15 majority party in the chamber. Further, Green Party candidates made up only 11 percent of minor party candidates in those elections, thus, it does not appear as though a large proportion of Green Party candidates were taking votes away from Democrats. After the Democrats won a majority in the House as a result of the 2006 election, the results presented in Table 6 indicate that both major parties lost vote shares to minor party candidates in the 2008 and 2010 elections. Thus, the negative and statistically significant relationship between the presence of a minor party candidate and vote shares remained after the Democrats took control of the chamber, but minor party candidates began taking vote shares from candidates as well. The significance of the minor party variable in the vote share model may be attributable to the increase in the number of Libertarian candidates in those races, as Libertarians rose from 37 to 58 percent of all minor party candidates. DISCUSSION Of the fifteen state legislatures examined in this preliminary study, the findings from ten of those states seem to support the hypothesis proposed in this paper, that voters may view minor party candidates as an outlet to express their frustration with the majority party in the chamber. The findings from Connecticut, New York and Indiana provide the most support for this hypothesis. In Connecticut and New York, votes for minor party candidates clearly came at the expense of those in the majority, despite the fact that Green Party candidates were not the majority of minor party candidates in those races. Similarly in Indiana, votes for minor party candidates came at the expense of candidates in the majority, even though the vast majority of minor party candidates were Libertarians. These findings provide evidence that at least in these three states, votes for minor parties seem to take votes away from the majority 15

16 party, even when attempting to control for the specific minor parties fielding candidates in those races. Seven other states, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Utah, all had findings that seemed to support the hypothesis, in that the presence of minor parties tended to be associated with lower vote shares for the majority Party in each state. These findings may, however, also be explained by the fact that the Libertarian or Constitution Parties were the largest minor parties in each state. The presence of conservative minor party candidates could explain the lower vote shares for candidates in these instances. The findings from the five other state legislatures did not seem to support the hypothesis. The fact that minor party candidates seemed to take votes from candidates in California and Colorado, despite majorities, is likely explained by the high proportion of Libertarian candidates on the ballot in those states. The lack of a significant impact of minor parties on either major party in North Carolina is possibly explained by the relatively low vote shares that minor party candidates receive in that state. Florida and Maine seem to be anomalies and deeper exploration is needed to understand the findings there. Similarly, with the U.S. House races, the evidence presented above suggests that voters are not casting votes for minor party candidates as a response to the majority party in that chamber. Instead, state level effects should be explored. Future research will delve deeper into this issue by controlling for the different minor parties on the ballot in these states. For example, statistical analysis will examine the effects of specific minor party candidates on and vote shares by distinguishing between the different minor parties in each state. 16

17 REFERENCES: Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller and Donald Stokes The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Chressanthis, George A. and Stephen D. Shaffer Major-Party Failure and Third-Party Voting in Presidential Elections, Social Science Quarterly, 74(2): Chressanthis, George A Third Party Voting and the Rational Voter Model: Empirical Evidence from Recent Presidential Elections. Public Choice, 65(1): CQ Press Congressional Districts in the 2000s. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Duverger, Maurice Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley. Elliot, Euel, Gerard S. Gryski and Bruce Reed Minor Party Support in State Legislative Elections. State & Local Government Review, 22(3): Fiorina, Morris P Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Flanigan, William H. and Nancy H. Zingale Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 8 th Ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Gillespie, J. David Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party America. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Herrnson, Paul S Two-Party Dominance and Minor-Party Forays in American Politics. In Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. Multiparty Politics in America, 2 nd Edition. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Howell, Susan E Racism, Cynicism, Economics and David Duke. American Politics Quarterly, 22(2): Howell, Susan E. and Deborah Fagan Race and Trust in Government. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(3): Lilley, William, III, Laurence J. DeFranco, Mark F. Bernstein, Karl L. Ramsby The Almanac of State Legislative Elections: Voting Patterns and Demographics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Nadeau, Richard and Michael S. Lewis-Beck National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections. Journal of Politics, 63(1):

18 Peterson, Geoff and J. Mark Wrighton Expressions of Distrust: Third-Party Voting and Cynicism in Government. Political Behavior, 20(1): Rosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr and Edward H. Lazarus Third Parties in America, 2 nd Ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Winger, Richard Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System. In Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. Multiparty Politics in America. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc:

19 Table 1: Minor Parties in Legislative and Congressional Races, * Races with Minor Party Candidate Strong California 133 (35.8%) Connecticut 85 (17.7%) New York 112 (21.7%) Strong Florida 61 (24.9%) Idaho 31 (15.7%) Kansas 62 (18.6%) Utah 102# (37.6%) Leaning Colorado 57 (22.1%) Indiana 60 (19.4%) Maine 54 (9.7%) North Carolina 45 (14.8%) Leaning Michigan 172 (32.5%) Minnesota 108# (16.6%) Oregon 51 (22.3%) Texas 133 (40.9%) U.S. House (54.8%) U.S. House (57.9%) Races with Libertarian Party Candidate 114 (85.7%) 22 (25.9%) 9 (8%) 41# (67.2%) 26# (83.9%) 52 (83.9%) 99# (97.1%) Races with Green Party Candidate 17 (12.8%) 39# (45.9%) 37# (33%) Races with Other Minor Party Candidate 2 (1.5%) 24 (8.2%) 66 (58.9%) 4 16 (6.6%) (26.2%) 0 5 (16.1%) 0 10 (16.1%) 0 3 (2.9%) 52 (91.2%) 0 5 (8.8%) (90%) (10%) (66.7%) (33.3%) (100%) 107 (62.2%) 24 (14%) 41 (23.8%) 79# 28 1 (73.2%) (25.9%) (0.9%) 34 2# 15 (66.7%) (3.9%) (29.4%) (97%) (3%) (36.7%) (10.9%) (52.4%) (58.1%) (24.1%) (17.8%) *Percentages in the Races with Minor Party Candidate indicate the proportion of all races with at least one minor party candidate on the ballot. Percentages in the remaining columns indicate the proportion of candidates from that party or group out of all minor party candidates. #In Connecticut and New York, the Working Families Party is included with Green Party candidates. In Florida, the Tea Party is included with Libertarian candidates. In Idaho and Utah, the Constitution Party is included with Libertarian candidates. In Minnesota, Independence Party candidates are included with Libertarian candidates. In Oregon, the Progressive Party is included with Green candidates. 19

20 Table 2: Impact of Minor Party Candidates on Major Party in State Lower Chambers with Strong Majorities, California California Connecticut Connecticut New York New York Minor Present (1.03) -3.88*** (1.04) -3.72*** (0.90) 0.26 (0.88) -4.59*** (0.93) (0.02) Incumbent 9.85*** (1.1) -9.47*** (1.11) 6.88*** (0.92) -6.77*** (0.9) 11.15*** (0.99) -9.78*** (0.99) Incumbent *** (1.26) 11.22*** (1.27) -12.9*** (1.1) 13.13*** (1.1) *** (1.14) 13.0*** (1.13) Education 0.97*** (0.07) -0.97*** (0.07) (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) 0.37*** (0.04) -0.37*** (0.04) % Below Poverty 0.97*** (0.11) -0.97*** (0.11) 0.23* (0.12) -0.29** (0.11) 0.60*** (0.07) -0.59*** (0.07) % White -0.36*** (0.04) 0.36*** (0.04) -2.7*** (0.03) 0.27*** (0.03) -0.32*** (0.02) 0.31*** (0.02) (1.44) 2.78 (1.45) 1.2 (1.0) -1.1 (0.98) 2.67** (1.1) (1.1) (1.41) 1.09 (1.43) 5.0*** (1.05) -4.53*** (1.03) 5.13*** (1.1) -4.78*** (1.1) *** -7.41*** 6.64*** -5.95*** (1.42) (1.44) (1.02) (1.0) (1.1) * -3.77** 6.85*** -7.13*** 6.52*** (3.33) (1.44) (1.02) (1.0) (1.1) N Adj. R² * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < (1.1) -5.66*** (1.1) 20

21 Table 3: Impact of Minor Party Candidates on Major Party in State Lower Chambers with Strong Majorities, Florida Florida Idaho Idaho Kansas Kansas Utah Utah -2.63** (1.3) -15.1*** (1.8) 4.31** (1.6) (0.1) 0.31 (0.14) 0.46*** (0.06) -5.77** (2.0) (2.0) -5.79** Minor Present -4.75*** (1.4) 0.86 (1.4) 0.38 (1.5) -4.9*** (1.5) -1.2 (1.3) -3.73** (1.3) -1.9 (1.3) Dem *** -12.1*** 9.36*** -9.14*** 13.69*** -13.3*** 14.85*** Incumb. (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.4) (1.4) (1.8) Rep *** 6.0*** -3.91*** 4.1*** -5.96*** 6.24*** -4.49*** Incumb. (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.6) Education *** -1.06*** * (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.06) (0.06) (0.1) % Below 0.31* -0.30* 1.19*** -1.18*** 0.34** -0.33** -0.38** Poverty (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.12) (0.1) (0.15) % White -0.12*** 0.12*** *** 0.14*** (0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.06) (0.04) (0.4) (0.07) ** -4.2* 4.3** -4.5** 7.21*** -7.4*** 6.2** (1.75) (1.77) (1.7) (1.7) (1.6) (1.6) (2.0) ** -4.07* 5.66*** -5.55*** 2.8 (1.8) (1.8) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (2.0) *** -7.83*** 7.2*** -6.89*** 9.07*** -8.71*** 5.45** (1.7) (1.68) (1.7) (1.7) (1.5) (1.5) (2.0) ** -4.47** *** -6.57*** 6.97*** (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5) (1.4) (1.8) N Adj. R² * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < (1.9) -6.89*** (1.8) 21

22 Table 4: Impact of Minor Party Candidates on Major Party in State Lower Chambers Leaning, Colorado Colorado Indiana Indiana Maine Maine North Carolina North Carolina Minor Present (1.2) -3.38** (1.2) -3.54** (1.2) (1.2) -4.81*** (1.2) -13.5*** (1.3) (1.3) Dem. 6.41*** -5.87*** 9.36*** -9.07*** 8.92*** -8.86*** 6.41*** Incumb (1.1) (1.1) (1.4) (1.4) (0.9) (0.9) (1.1) Rep *** 8.06*** -7.4*** 7.58*** -10.1*** 10.36*** -7.24*** Incumb. (1.2) (1.2) (1.5) (1.4) (0.9) (1.0) (1.2) Education 0.86*** -0.85*** *** (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.05) (0.05) (0.07) % Below 0.50*** -0.49*** 0.62*** -0.62*** *** Poverty (0.11) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.08) (0.1) (0.14) % White -0.50*** 0.51*** -0.32*** 0.31*** -0.31** 0.26* -0.34*** (0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03) (0.1) (0.1) (0.03) # # 4.1** (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.4) * -2.9* 4.93*** -5.33*** 6.1*** (1.4) (1.5) (1.4) (1.4) (1.0) (1.0) (1.3) *** -3.62** 7.56*** -7.34*** 7.2*** -7.1*** 7.56*** (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.0) (1.0) (1.3) *** -3.92** 7.46*** -7.05*** 7.1*** -7.86*** 7.6*** (1.3) (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.0) (1.0) (1.2) N Adj. R² #Maine did not redistrict until the 2004 election, so the 2002 election is not included. * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < (1.3) -6.4*** (1.1) 7.17*** (1.2) -0.35*** (0.07) -0.54*** (0.14) 0.34*** (0.03) -4.05** (1.4) -5.99*** (1.3) -7.56*** (1.3) -7.72*** (1.2) 22

23 Table 5: Impact of Minor Party Candidates on Major Party in State Lower Chambers Leaning Majorities, Michigan Michigan Minnesota Minnesota Oregon Oregon Texas Texas Minor Present -1.3 (0.9) -1.83* (0.9) -3.5*** (0.02) -4.16*** (0.8) (1.4) -2.72* (1.4) (1.0) Dem *** -10.7*** 10.5*** -8.77*** 9.82*** -9.57*** 13.61*** Incumb. (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (1.5) (1.6) (1.3) Rep *** 10.8*** -6.79*** 8.21*** -7.97*** 8.18*** -2.87* Incumb. (1.1) (1.1) (0.9) (0.9) (1.4) (1.4) (1.2) Education *** -0.27*** 0.83*** -0.82*** 0.02 (0.06) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) % Below 0.51*** -0.52*** 0.60*** -0.66*** 0.58*** -0.59*** 0.15 Poverty (0.1) (0.1) (0.07) (0.07) (0.15) (0.2) (0.1) % White -0.46*** 0.45*** -0.31*** 0.32*** -0.25*** 0.25*** -0.27*** (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) (0.05) (0.03) ** -3.63** 2.16* -1.88** *** (1.3) (1.3) (1.0) (0.9) (1.7) (1.8) (1.4) *** -5.2*** 5.58*** -5.26*** 3.93* -4.06* 7.22*** (1.3) (1.3) (0.9) (0.9) (1.8) (1.8) (1.5) *** -10.1*** 7.79*** -7.29*** 5.59*** -5.74*** 8.88*** (1.3) (1.3) (0.9) (0.9) (1.6) (1.7) (1.4) *** -8.95*** 5.1*** -5.0*** 4.74** -4.64** 8.26*** (1.3) (1.3) (0.9) (0.9) (1.8) (1.8) (1.4) N Adj. R² * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < ** (1.0) -13.4*** (1.3) 3.14** (1.3) (0.07) (0.1) 0.27*** (0.03) -7.48*** (1.4) -7.19*** (1.5) -9.22*** (1.4) -8.12*** (1.4) 23

24 Table 6: Impact of Minor Party Candidates on Major Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, Control Control Control Minor Present -2.2*** *** (0.53) (0.52) (0.63) Dem Inc 17.5*** *** 12.75*** (0.86) (0.85) (0.99) Rep Inc *** 13.22*** *** (0.85) (0.83) (1.0) Education 0.23*** -0.25*** 0.26*** (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) % Below Poverty 0.47*** -0.49*** 0.23* (0.09) (0.09) (0.11) % White -0.09*** 0.09*** -0.26*** (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) *** 5.88*** (0.64) (0.63) *** 3.85*** (0.63) (0.62) *** Control ** (0.64) *** (1.0) 12.5*** (1.0) -0.25*** (0.05) -0.24* (0.1) 0.25*** (0.02) -8.36*** (0.62) (0.61) N Adj. R² * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p <

Issue Importance and Performance Voting. *** Soumis à Political Behavior ***

Issue Importance and Performance Voting. *** Soumis à Political Behavior *** Issue Importance and Performance Voting Patrick Fournier, André Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte *** Soumis à Political Behavior *** Issue importance mediates the impact of public

More information

Amy Tenhouse. Incumbency Surge: Examining the 1996 Margin of Victory for U.S. House Incumbents

Amy Tenhouse. Incumbency Surge: Examining the 1996 Margin of Victory for U.S. House Incumbents Amy Tenhouse Incumbency Surge: Examining the 1996 Margin of Victory for U.S. House Incumbents In 1996, the American public reelected 357 members to the United States House of Representatives; of those

More information

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES. by Andrew L. Roth

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES. by Andrew L. Roth THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES by Andrew L. Roth INTRODUCTION The following pages provide a statistical profile of California's state legislature. The data are intended to suggest who

More information

Julie Lenggenhager. The "Ideal" Female Candidate

Julie Lenggenhager. The Ideal Female Candidate Julie Lenggenhager The "Ideal" Female Candidate Why are there so few women elected to positions in both gubernatorial and senatorial contests? Since the ratification of the nineteenth amendment in 1920

More information

The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate

The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate Nicholas Goedert Lafayette College goedertn@lafayette.edu May, 2015 ABSTRACT: This note observes that the pro-republican

More information

Chapter 7 Political Parties: Essential to Democracy

Chapter 7 Political Parties: Essential to Democracy Key Chapter Questions Chapter 7 Political Parties: Essential to Democracy 1. What do political parties do for American democracy? 2. How has the nomination of candidates changed throughout history? Also,

More information

Who Runs the States?

Who Runs the States? Who Runs the States? An in-depth look at historical state partisan control and quality of life indices Part 1: Partisanship of the 50 states between 1992-2013 By Geoff Pallay May 2013 1 Table of Contents

More information

The Outlook for the 2010 Midterm Elections: How Large a Wave?

The Outlook for the 2010 Midterm Elections: How Large a Wave? The Outlook for the 2010 Midterm Elections: How Large a Wave? What is at stake? All 435 House seats 256 Democratic seats 179 Republican seats Republicans needs to gain 39 seats for majority 37 Senate seats

More information

Issues, Ideology, and the Rise of Republican Identification Among Southern Whites,

Issues, Ideology, and the Rise of Republican Identification Among Southern Whites, Issues, Ideology, and the Rise of Republican Identification Among Southern Whites, 1982-2000 H. Gibbs Knotts, Alan I. Abramowitz, Susan H. Allen, and Kyle L. Saunders The South s partisan shift from solidly

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress Order Code RS20273 Updated September 8, 2003 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections Thomas H. Neale Government and

More information

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS20273 Updated January 17, 2001 The Electoral College: How it Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections Thomas H. Neale Analyst, American

More information

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? 1 Politicians are drawing their own voting maps to manipulate elections and keep themselves and their party in power. 2 3 -The U.S. Constitution requires that the

More information

2010 Legislative Elections

2010 Legislative Elections 2010 Legislative Elections By Tim Storey State Legislative Branch The 2010 state legislative elections brought major change to the state partisan landscape with Republicans emerging in the best position

More information

Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President. Statistical Appendix

Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President. Statistical Appendix Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President Valentino Larcinese, Leonzio Rizzo, Cecilia Testa Statistical Appendix 1 Summary Statistics (Tables A1 and A2) Table A1 reports

More information

Ohio State University

Ohio State University Fake News Did Have a Significant Impact on the Vote in the 2016 Election: Original Full-Length Version with Methodological Appendix By Richard Gunther, Paul A. Beck, and Erik C. Nisbet Ohio State University

More information

Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate

Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate by Vanessa Perez, Ph.D. January 2015 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 4 2 Methodology 5 3 Continuing Disparities in the and Voting Populations 6-10 4 National

More information

Most Have Heard Little or Nothing about Redistricting Debate LACK OF COMPETITION IN ELECTIONS FAILS TO STIR PUBLIC

Most Have Heard Little or Nothing about Redistricting Debate LACK OF COMPETITION IN ELECTIONS FAILS TO STIR PUBLIC NEWS Release 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel (202) 419-4350 Fax (202) 419-4399 FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2006, 10:00 AM EDT Most Have Heard Little or Nothing about Redistricting

More information

Campaigns & Elections November 6, 2017 Dr. Michael Sullivan. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOVT 2305 MoWe 5:30 6:50 MoWe 7 8:30

Campaigns & Elections November 6, 2017 Dr. Michael Sullivan. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOVT 2305 MoWe 5:30 6:50 MoWe 7 8:30 Campaigns & Elections November 6, 2017 Dr. Michael Sullivan FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOVT 2305 MoWe 5:30 6:50 MoWe 7 8:30 Current Events, Recent Polls, & Review Background influences on campaigns Presidential

More information

The California Primary and Redistricting

The California Primary and Redistricting The California Primary and Redistricting This study analyzes what is the important impact of changes in the primary voting rules after a Congressional and Legislative Redistricting. Under a citizen s committee,

More information

Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections

Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Christopher N. Lawrence Department of Political Science Duke University April 3, 2006 Overview During the 1990s, minor-party

More information

AP Gov Chapter 09 Outline

AP Gov Chapter 09 Outline I. TURNING OUT TO VOTE Although most presidents have won a majority of the votes cast in the election, no modern president has been elected by more than 38 percent of the total voting age population. In

More information

Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections

Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Political Sophistication and Third-Party Voting in Recent Presidential Elections Christopher N. Lawrence Department of Political Science Duke University April 3, 2006 Overview During the 1990s, minor-party

More information

Political Report: September 2010

Political Report: September 2010 Political Report: September 2010 Introduction The REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP) is a program of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) dedicated to keeping or winning Republican control

More information

Regional Variations in Public Opinion on the Affordable Care Act

Regional Variations in Public Opinion on the Affordable Care Act Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law Advance Publication, published on September 26, 2011 Report from the States Regional Variations in Public Opinion on the Affordable Care Act Mollyann Brodie Claudia

More information

Applying Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections. The Case for RCV with the Top Four Primary and Multi-Member Districts. Rob Richie, FairVote

Applying Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections. The Case for RCV with the Top Four Primary and Multi-Member Districts. Rob Richie, FairVote Applying Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections The Case for RCV with the Top Four Primary and Multi-Member Districts Rob Richie, FairVote American Exceptionalism: Inescapable Realities for Reformers

More information

Name: Class: Date: ID: A

Name: Class: Date: ID: A Class: Date: Chapter 5 Test Matching IDENTIFYING KEY TERMS Match each item with the correct statement below. You will not use all the terms. Some terms may be used more than once. a. coalition b. political

More information

What to Do about Turnout Bias in American Elections? A Response to Wink and Weber

What to Do about Turnout Bias in American Elections? A Response to Wink and Weber What to Do about Turnout Bias in American Elections? A Response to Wink and Weber Thomas L. Brunell At the end of the 2006 term, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision with respect to the Texas

More information

Background Information on Redistricting

Background Information on Redistricting Redistricting in New York State Citizens Union/League of Women Voters of New York State Background Information on Redistricting What is redistricting? Redistricting determines the lines of state legislative

More information

2008 Legislative Elections

2008 Legislative Elections 2008 Legislative Elections By Tim Storey Democrats have been on a roll in legislative elections and increased their numbers again in 2008. Buoyed by the strong campaign of President Barack Obama in many

More information

Purposes of Elections

Purposes of Elections Purposes of Elections o Regular free elections n guarantee mass political action n enable citizens to influence the actions of their government o Popular election confers on a government the legitimacy

More information

Partisan Nation: The Rise of Affective Partisan Polarization in the American Electorate

Partisan Nation: The Rise of Affective Partisan Polarization in the American Electorate Partisan Nation: The Rise of Affective Partisan Polarization in the American Electorate Alan I. Abramowitz Department of Political Science Emory University Abstract Partisan conflict has reached new heights

More information

Chapter Four: Chamber Competitiveness, Political Polarization, and Political Parties

Chapter Four: Chamber Competitiveness, Political Polarization, and Political Parties Chapter Four: Chamber Competitiveness, Political Polarization, and Political Parties Building off of the previous chapter in this dissertation, this chapter investigates the involvement of political parties

More information

Why The National Popular Vote Bill Is Not A Good Choice

Why The National Popular Vote Bill Is Not A Good Choice Why The National Popular Vote Bill Is Not A Good Choice A quick look at the National Popular Vote (NPV) approach gives the impression that it promises a much better result in the Electoral College process.

More information

To understand the U.S. electoral college and, more generally, American democracy, it is critical to understand that when voters go to the polls on

To understand the U.S. electoral college and, more generally, American democracy, it is critical to understand that when voters go to the polls on To understand the U.S. electoral college and, more generally, American democracy, it is critical to understand that when voters go to the polls on Tuesday, November 8th, they are not voting together in

More information

An in-depth examination of North Carolina voter attitudes in important current issues. Registered Voters in North Carolina

An in-depth examination of North Carolina voter attitudes in important current issues. Registered Voters in North Carolina An in-depth examination of North Carolina voter attitudes in important current issues Registered Voters in North Carolina January 21-25, 2018 Table of Contents Key Survey Insights... 3 Satisfaction with

More information

o Yes o No o Under 18 o o o o o o o o 85 or older BLW YouGov spec

o Yes o No o Under 18 o o o o o o o o 85 or older BLW YouGov spec BLW YouGov spec This study is being conducted by John Carey, Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, and Susan Stokes, who are professors at Dartmouth College (Carey and Nyhan), the University of Rochester (Helmke),

More information

Oregon Progressive Party Position on Bill at 2017 Session of Oregon Legislature:

Oregon Progressive Party Position on Bill at 2017 Session of Oregon Legislature: March 23, 2017 411 S.W. 2nd Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 503-548-2797 info@progparty.org Oregon Progressive Party Position on Bill at 2017 Session of Oregon Legislature: HB 2211: Oppose Dear Committee:

More information

Retrospective Voting

Retrospective Voting Retrospective Voting Who Are Retrospective Voters and Does it Matter if the Incumbent President is Running Kaitlin Franks Senior Thesis In Economics Adviser: Richard Ball 4/30/2009 Abstract Prior literature

More information

Electoral Reform Questionnaire Field Dates: October 12-18, 2016

Electoral Reform Questionnaire Field Dates: October 12-18, 2016 1 Electoral Reform Questionnaire Field Dates: October 12-18, 2016 Note: The questions below were part of a more extensive survey. 1. A [ALTERNATE WITH B HALF-SAMPLE EACH] All things considered, would you

More information

Political Parties. Chapter 9

Political Parties. Chapter 9 Political Parties Chapter 9 Political Parties What Are Political Parties? Political parties: organized groups that attempt to influence the government by electing their members to local, state, and national

More information

December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote STATE OF VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE HOUSE 115 STATE STREET MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5201 December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote To Members

More information

Midterm Elections Used to Gauge President s Reelection Chances

Midterm Elections Used to Gauge President s Reelection Chances 90 Midterm Elections Used to Gauge President s Reelection Chances --Desmond Wallace-- Desmond Wallace is currently studying at Coastal Carolina University for a Bachelor s degree in both political science

More information

THE EFFECT OF EARLY VOTING AND THE LENGTH OF EARLY VOTING ON VOTER TURNOUT

THE EFFECT OF EARLY VOTING AND THE LENGTH OF EARLY VOTING ON VOTER TURNOUT THE EFFECT OF EARLY VOTING AND THE LENGTH OF EARLY VOTING ON VOTER TURNOUT Simona Altshuler University of Florida Email: simonaalt@ufl.edu Advisor: Dr. Lawrence Kenny Abstract This paper explores the effects

More information

2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview

2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview 2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview ʺIn Clinton, the superdelegates have a candidate who fits their recent mold and the last two elections have been very close. This year is a bad year for Republicans.

More information

Why are there only two major parties in US? [party attachments below]

Why are there only two major parties in US? [party attachments below] Why are there only two major parties in US? [party attachments below] A. Institutional Constraints on 3 rd Parties 1. Election System Single-member districts (SMDs) Winner-take-all first-past-the-post

More information

State Legislative Competition in 2012: Redistricting and Party Polarization Drive Decrease In Competition

State Legislative Competition in 2012: Redistricting and Party Polarization Drive Decrease In Competition October 17, 2012 State Legislative Competition in 2012: Redistricting and Party Polarization Drive Decrease In Competition John J. McGlennon, Ph.D. Government Department Chair and Professor of Government

More information

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Gender Parity Index INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY - 2017 State of Women's Representation Page 1 INTRODUCTION As a result of the 2016 elections, progress towards gender parity stalled. Beyond Hillary Clinton

More information

2018 State Legislative Elections: Will History Prevail? Sept. 27, 2018 OAS Episode 44

2018 State Legislative Elections: Will History Prevail? Sept. 27, 2018 OAS Episode 44 The Our American States podcast produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures is where you hear compelling conversations that tell the story of America s state legislatures, the people in them,

More information

The Electoral College And

The Electoral College And The Electoral College And National Popular Vote Plan State Population 2010 House Apportionment Senate Number of Electors California 37,341,989 53 2 55 Texas 25,268,418 36 2 38 New York 19,421,055 27 2

More information

Minnesota State Politics: Battles Over Constitution and State House

Minnesota State Politics: Battles Over Constitution and State House Minnesota Public Radio News and Humphrey Institute Poll Minnesota State Politics: Battles Over Constitution and State House Report prepared by the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance Humphrey

More information

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research Arkansas (reelection) Georgia (reelection) Idaho (reelection) Kentucky (reelection) Michigan (partisan nomination - reelection) Minnesota (reelection) Mississippi

More information

In the Margins Political Victory in the Context of Technology Error, Residual Votes, and Incident Reports in 2004

In the Margins Political Victory in the Context of Technology Error, Residual Votes, and Incident Reports in 2004 In the Margins Political Victory in the Context of Technology Error, Residual Votes, and Incident Reports in 2004 Dr. Philip N. Howard Assistant Professor, Department of Communication University of Washington

More information

Race to the White House Drive to the 2016 Republican Nomination. Ron Nehring California Chairman, Ted Cruz for President

Race to the White House Drive to the 2016 Republican Nomination. Ron Nehring California Chairman, Ted Cruz for President Race to the White House Drive to the 2016 Republican Nomination Ron Nehring California Chairman, Ted Cruz for President July 18 21, 2016 2016 Republican National Convention Cleveland, Ohio J ul y 18 21,

More information

Partisan Advantage and Competitiveness in Illinois Redistricting

Partisan Advantage and Competitiveness in Illinois Redistricting Partisan Advantage and Competitiveness in Illinois Redistricting An Updated and Expanded Look By: Cynthia Canary & Kent Redfield June 2015 Using data from the 2014 legislative elections and digging deeper

More information

The second step of my proposed plan involves breaking states up into multi-seat districts.

The second step of my proposed plan involves breaking states up into multi-seat districts. Multi-Seat Districts The second step of my proposed plan involves breaking states up into multi-seat districts. This will obviously be easy to do, and to understand, in a small, densely populated state

More information

SELA Antenna in the United States SELA Permanent Secretary No th Quarter 2007

SELA Antenna in the United States SELA Permanent Secretary No th Quarter 2007 SELA Antenna in the United States SELA Permanent Secretary No. 86 4 th Quarter 2007 SUMMARY: TRADE POLICY AND THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Impact of the Election on Issues in 2008 Impact of the Election

More information

Texas Elections Part I

Texas Elections Part I Texas Elections Part I In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. Matt Taibbi Elections...a formal decision-making process

More information

Understanding The Split-ticket Voter

Understanding The Split-ticket Voter University of Central Florida Electronic Theses and Dissertations Masters Thesis (Open Access) Understanding The Split-ticket Voter 2010 Janelle Middents University of Central Florida Find similar works

More information

When should I use the Voting and Elections Collection?

When should I use the Voting and Elections Collection? INTRODUCTION When should I use the Voting and Elections Collection? You can find information and data on: The campaign and election process The electorate, including some demographics, voter turnout and

More information

New Americans in. By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D.

New Americans in. By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D. New Americans in the VOTING Booth The Growing Electoral Power OF Immigrant Communities By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D. Special Report October 2014 New Americans in the VOTING Booth:

More information

PARTISANSHIP AND WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTIONS

PARTISANSHIP AND WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTIONS Number of Representatives October 2012 PARTISANSHIP AND WINNER-TAKE-ALL ELECTIONS ANALYZING THE 2010 ELECTIONS TO THE U.S. HOUSE FairVote grounds its analysis of congressional elections in district partisanship.

More information

How do parties contribute to democratic politics?

How do parties contribute to democratic politics? Chapter Objectives Evaluate how political parties both contribute to and detract from democratic politics Trace the history of political parties in the U.S. and assess the contemporary system Compare and

More information

Parties and Elections. Selections from Chapters 11 & 12

Parties and Elections. Selections from Chapters 11 & 12 Parties and Elections Selections from Chapters 11 & 12 Party Eras in American History Party Eras Historical periods in which a majority of voters cling to the party in power Critical Election An electoral

More information

Part I: Univariate Spatial Model (20%)

Part I: Univariate Spatial Model (20%) 17.251 Fall 2012 Midterm Exam answers Directions: Do the following problem. Part I: Univariate Spatial Model (20%) The nation is faced with a situation in which, if legislation isn t passed, the level

More information

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules About 4,051 pledged About 712 unpledged 2472 delegates Images from: https://ballotpedia.org/presidential_election,_2016 On the news I hear about super

More information

Simulating Electoral College Results using Ranked Choice Voting if a Strong Third Party Candidate were in the Election Race

Simulating Electoral College Results using Ranked Choice Voting if a Strong Third Party Candidate were in the Election Race Simulating Electoral College Results using Ranked Choice Voting if a Strong Third Party Candidate were in the Election Race Michele L. Joyner and Nicholas J. Joyner Department of Mathematics & Statistics

More information

Who Voted for Trump in 2016?

Who Voted for Trump in 2016? Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2017, 5, 199-210 http://www.scirp.org/journal/jss ISSN Online: 2327-5960 ISSN Print: 2327-5952 Who Voted for Trump in 2016? Alexandra C. Cook, Nathan J. Hill, Mary I. Trichka,

More information

Running Ahead or Falling Behind: The Coattail Effect And Divided Government

Running Ahead or Falling Behind: The Coattail Effect And Divided Government Running Ahead or Falling Behind: The Coattail Effect And Divided Government Research Project Submitted by: Latisha Younger Western Illinois University American Government, Masters Program latisha_louise@yahoo.com

More information

More State s Apportionment Allocations Impacted by New Census Estimates; New Twist in Supreme Court Case

More State s Apportionment Allocations Impacted by New Census Estimates; New Twist in Supreme Court Case [Type here] 6171 Emerywood Court Manassas, Virginia 20112 202 789.2004 tel. or 703 580.7267 703 580.6258 fax Info@electiondataservices.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 22, 2015 Contact: Kimball

More information

Red Shift. The Domestic Policy Program. October 2010

Red Shift. The Domestic Policy Program. October 2010 The Domestic Policy Program TO: Interested Parties FROM: Anne Kim, Domestic Policy Program Director Jon Cowan, President, Third Way RE: The Deciders: Moderates in 2010 October 2010 Amid growing concerns

More information

Who Really Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012?

Who Really Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Who Really Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Helena N. Hlavaty a, Mohamed A. Hussein a, Peter Kiley-Bergen a, Liuxufei Yang a, and Paul M. Sommers a The authors use simple bilinear regression on statewide

More information

The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate

The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate The Case of the Disappearing Bias: A 2014 Update to the Gerrymandering or Geography Debate Nicholas Goedert Lafayette College goedertn@lafayette.edu November, 2015 ABSTRACT: This note observes that the

More information

Growth Leads to Transformation

Growth Leads to Transformation Growth Leads to Transformation Florida attracted newcomers for a variety of reasons. Some wanted to escape cold weather (retirees). Others, primarily from abroad, came in search of political freedom or

More information

Key Factors That Shaped 2018 And A Brief Look Ahead

Key Factors That Shaped 2018 And A Brief Look Ahead Key Factors That Shaped 2018 And A Brief Look Ahead November 2018 Bill McInturff SLIDE 1 Yes, it was all about Trump. SLIDE 2 A midterm record said their vote was a message of support or opposition to

More information

Party loyalty in Saskatchewan: A research brief. February 2012

Party loyalty in Saskatchewan: A research brief. February 2012 Party loyalty in Saskatchewan: A research brief February 2012 Saskatchewan Election Study team 1 Dr. Michael Atkinson, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy Dr. Loleen Berdahl, University of

More information

AP US GOVERNMENT: CHAPER 7: POLITICAL PARTIES: ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY

AP US GOVERNMENT: CHAPER 7: POLITICAL PARTIES: ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY AP US GOVERNMENT: CHAPER 7: POLITICAL PARTIES: ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY Before political parties, candidates were listed alphabetically, and those whose names began with the letters A to F did better than

More information

2010 CENSUS POPULATION REAPPORTIONMENT DATA

2010 CENSUS POPULATION REAPPORTIONMENT DATA Southern Tier East Census Monograph Series Report 11-1 January 2011 2010 CENSUS POPULATION REAPPORTIONMENT DATA The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, requires a decennial census for the

More information

The 2014 Election in Aiken County: The Sales Tax Proposal for Public Schools

The 2014 Election in Aiken County: The Sales Tax Proposal for Public Schools The 2014 Election in Aiken County: The Sales Tax Proposal for Public Schools A Public Service Report The USC Aiken Social Science and Business Research Lab Robert E. Botsch, Director All conclusions in

More information

Popular Vote. Total: 77,734, %

Popular Vote. Total: 77,734, % PRESIDENTIAL 72: A CASE STUDY The 1972 election, in contrast to the extremely close contest of 1968, resulted in a sweeping reelection victory for President Nixon and one of the most massive presidential

More information

Political Science 333: Elections, American Style Spring 2006

Political Science 333: Elections, American Style Spring 2006 Course Summary: Political Science 333: Elections, American Style Spring 2006 Professor Paul Gronke 434 Eliot Hall 503-517-7393 Office Hours: Thursday, 9-11 am or by appointment Readings and other resources:

More information

Research Note: U.S. Senate Elections and Newspaper Competition

Research Note: U.S. Senate Elections and Newspaper Competition Research Note: U.S. Senate Elections and Newspaper Competition Jan Vermeer, Nebraska Wesleyan University The contextual factors that structure electoral contests affect election outcomes. This research

More information

What Is A Political Party?

What Is A Political Party? What Is A Political Party? A group of office holders, candidates, activists, and voters who identify with a group label and seek to elect to public office individuals who run under that label. Consist

More information

Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study

Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study Barry C. Burden and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier The Ohio State University Department of Political Science 2140 Derby Hall Columbus,

More information

CITIZENS RESEARCH COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN IS A 501(C) 3) TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION

CITIZENS RESEARCH COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN IS A 501(C) 3) TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION Citizens Research Council of Michigan 625 SHELBY STREET, SUITE 1B, DETROIT, Ml 48226,3220 (313) 961-5377 FAX (313) 9614)648 1502 MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWER, LANSING, Ml 48933-1738 (517) 485-9444 FAX (547)

More information

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% FACT SHEET CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement Youth Voter Increases in 2006 By Mark Hugo Lopez, Karlo Barrios Marcelo, and Emily Hoban Kirby 1 June 2007 For the

More information

APGAP Reading Quiz 2A AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES

APGAP Reading Quiz 2A AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES 1. Which of the following is TRUE of political parties in the United States? a. Parties require dues. b. Parties issue membership cards to all members. c. Party members agree on all major issues or they

More information

The Battleground: Democratic Perspective April 25 th, 2016

The Battleground: Democratic Perspective April 25 th, 2016 The Battleground: Democratic Perspective April 25 th, 2016 Democratic Strategic Analysis: By Celinda Lake, Daniel Gotoff, and Olivia Myszkowski The Political Climate The tension and anxiety recorded in

More information

2016 State Elections

2016 State Elections 2016 State Elections By Tim Storey and Dan Diorio Voters left the overall partisan landscape in state legislatures relatively unchanged in 2016, despite a tumultuous campaign for the presidency. The GOP

More information

Congressional Elections, 2018 and Beyond

Congressional Elections, 2018 and Beyond Congressional Elections, 2018 and Beyond Robert S. Erikson Columbia University 2018 Conference by the Hobby School of Public Affairs, University of Houston Triple Play: Election 2018; Census 2020; and

More information

Oregon. Voter Participation. Support local pilot. Support in my state. N/A Yes N/A. Election Day registration No X

Oregon. Voter Participation. Support local pilot. Support in my state. N/A Yes N/A. Election Day registration No X Oregon Voter Participation Assistance for language minority voters outside of Voting Rights Act mandates Automatic restoration of voting rights for ex-felons Automatic voter registration 1 in Continuation

More information

THE IMPACT OF STATE LAWS ON THE VOTER TURNOUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES. By: SIERRA RAYE YAMANAKA

THE IMPACT OF STATE LAWS ON THE VOTER TURNOUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES. By: SIERRA RAYE YAMANAKA THE IMPACT OF STATE LAWS ON THE VOTER TURNOUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES By: SIERRA RAYE YAMANAKA A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College In Partial Fulfillment

More information

ELECTION OVERVIEW. + Context: Mood of the Electorate. + Election Results: Why did it happen? + The Future: What does it mean going forward?

ELECTION OVERVIEW. + Context: Mood of the Electorate. + Election Results: Why did it happen? + The Future: What does it mean going forward? 1 ELECTION OVERVIEW + Context: Mood of the Electorate + Election Results: Why did it happen? + The Future: What does it mean going forward? + Appendix: Polling Post-Mortem 2 2 INITIAL HEADLINES + Things

More information

The 2002 Midterm Election: A Typical or an Atypical Midterm?

The 2002 Midterm Election: A Typical or an Atypical Midterm? FEATURES The 2002 Midterm Election: A Typical or an Atypical Midterm? James E. Campbell, University at Buffalo, SUNY t had been an inevitability rivaling Ideath and taxes. The president s party would lose

More information

connect the people to the government. These institutions include: elections, political parties, interest groups, and the media.

connect the people to the government. These institutions include: elections, political parties, interest groups, and the media. Overriding Questions 1. How has the decline of political parties influenced elections and campaigning? 2. How do political parties positively influence campaigns and elections and how do they negatively

More information

AP PHOTO/MATT VOLZ. Voter Trends in A Final Examination. By Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and John Halpin November 2017

AP PHOTO/MATT VOLZ. Voter Trends in A Final Examination. By Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and John Halpin November 2017 AP PHOTO/MATT VOLZ Voter Trends in 2016 A Final Examination By Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and John Halpin November 2017 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Voter Trends in 2016 A Final Examination By Rob Griffin,

More information

Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman. March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO.

Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman. March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. WHO REALLY VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA? by Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 10-19 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MIDDLEBURY

More information

Following the Leader: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislative Support for the President's Policy Preferences

Following the Leader: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislative Support for the President's Policy Preferences University of Colorado, Boulder CU Scholar Undergraduate Honors Theses Honors Program Spring 2011 Following the Leader: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislative Support for the President's

More information

POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States

POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship and in States 1 Voters think Congress is dysfunctional and reject the suggestion that it is effective. Please indicate whether you think this word or phrase describes

More information

Public Opinion on Health Care Issues October 2010

Public Opinion on Health Care Issues October 2010 Public Opinion on Health Care Issues October 2010 Kaiser s final Health Tracking Poll before the midterm elections finds few changes in the public s mindset toward health reform. While views on reform

More information

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the American Politics Commons

Follow this and additional works at:  Part of the American Politics Commons Marquette University e-publications@marquette Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program 2013 Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program 7-1-2013 Rafael Torres, Jr. - Does the United States Supreme Court decision in the

More information