Vote Shifts Research Articles

The Prospects for Contemporary Partisan Realignment

With the exception of 1976, all national elections since 1964 have generated commentary among both media analysts and political scientists about the possibility of realignment. Reports have varied from the straightforward—yes or no—to the contrived—realignment has been realized at the presidential but not the congressional level. In this essay, we outline our view of those factors that are necessary for a realignment, and we evaluate the 1984 elections with respect to those factors. Our focus in this analysis is on the tripartite structure of American party systems: party in the electorate, party in government, and party as organization. In addition, we discuss the policy consequences associated with realignments.Theories of RealignmentsSchlesinger (1984: 371) reminds us that “[the parts of parties] are treated as though each leads a life of its own with little attention to what if anything holds them together.” This admonition also holds for students of realignments. One school of thought, centering around the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, focuses attention on party in the electorate. In this view, a realigning election is one in which the normal party vote shifts from one party to another, and because of the influence of individual partisan identification on electoral outcome, this new majority party dominates elections for a generation or more. This emphasis on the distribution of party identification in the electorate is beneficial in that it gives us an operational definition of realignment and allows us to assess both critical and secular (gradual) realignments.

The Prospects for Contemporary Partisan Realignment

With the exception of 1976, all national elections since 1964 have generated commentary among both media analysts and political scientists about the possibility of realignment. Reports have varied from the straightforward—yes or no—to the contrived—realignment has been realized at the presidential but not the congressional level. In this essay, we outline our view of those factors that are necessary for a realignment, and we evaluate the 1984 elections with respect to those factors. Our focus in this analysis is on the tripartite structure of American party systems: party in the electorate, party in government, and party as organization. In addition, we discuss the policy consequences associated with realignments.Theories of RealignmentsSchlesinger (1984: 371) reminds us that “[the parts of parties] are treated as though each leads a life of its own with little attention to what if anything holds them together.” This admonition also holds for students of realignments. One school of thought, centering around the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, focuses attention on party in the electorate. In this view, a realigning election is one in which the normal party vote shifts from one party to another, and because of the influence of individual partisan identification on electoral outcome, this new majority party dominates elections for a generation or more. This emphasis on the distribution of party identification in the electorate is beneficial in that it gives us an operational definition of realignment and allows us to assess both critical and secular (gradual) realignments.

Estimating the Degree of Mobilization and Conversion in the 1890s: An Inquiry into the Nature of Electoral Change

The prime voting dynamic in the critical presidential election of 1896 was, according to the literature, the conversion of Democrats to the Republican banner. Unfortunately, mobilization of new voters has not been given much attention. To assess the role of mobilization, the vote shift possibilities from 1892 to 1896 were formalized, and all possible scenarios conforming to the aggregate data that characterized the electoral shift were analyzed by computer. Solutions to the tables representing the changes in voting from 1892 to 1896 show that in the Midwest more voters were mobilized in the 1896 election than were converted. In the Northeast, the conventional wisdom was not challenged. The findings illustrate the importance of mobilization as an explanation of large-scale electoral change.

Estimating the Degree of Mobilization and Conversion in the 1890s: An Inquiry into the Nature of Electoral Change

The prime voting dynamic in the critical presidential election of 1896 was, according to the literature, the conversion of Democrats to the Republican banner. Unfortunately, mobilization of new voters has not been given much attention. To assess the role of mobilization, the vote shift possibilities from 1892 to 1896 were formalized, and all possible scenarios conforming to the aggregate data that characterized the electoral shift were analyzed by computer. Solutions to the tables representing the changes in voting from 1892 to 1896 show that in the Midwest more voters were mobilized in the 1896 election than were converted. In the Northeast, the conventional wisdom was not challenged. The findings illustrate the importance of mobilization as an explanation of large-scale electoral change.

The 1928–1936 Partisan Realignment: The Case for the Conversion Hypothesis

An unresolved question concerning the New Deal realignment is the extent to which the Democratic surge in the vote resulted from either the conversion of former Republicans or the mobilization of newly active voters. Analyzing survey data from the Literary Digest straw polls and from early Gallup polls, we find evidence supporting the conversion hypothesis. New voters in 1928, 1932 and 1936 were only slightly more Democratic in their voting behavior than were established voters. Between 1924 and 1936, the vote among established voters was extremely volatile, largely accounting for the Democratic gains. After 1936, however, vote shifts became minimal and party identification had become highly consistent with presidential voting, suggesting a crystallization of the New Deal realignment by the late 1930s rather than a gradual evolution due to generational replacement.

Politique agricole et résultats électoraux en milieu agricole au Québec

Politique agricole et résultats électoraux en milieu agricole au QuébecThe purpose of this article is to assess the degree to which the agricultural policy of the Quebec government influences the provincial vote in rural areas. More precisely, does the pro-government vote shift as a result of the short-term economic impact of agricultural policy? This general hypothesis is broken down into four specific hypotheses. The unit of analysis is the agricultural locality, that is, one in which at least 50 per cent of the population lives on a farm. The analysis bears on the voting shifts in the elections of I960, 1962, 1966, 1970 and 1973.Two of the hypotheses are clearly invalid. The other two are confirmed for the election of 1966 but not for the election of 1973. The agricultural policy of the provincial government seems, therefore, to have an electoral impact only under certain conditions. It becomes clear that only policy changes effected a short time before an election, and that involve programmes with a highly visible economic impact, can strongly influence the vote.In addition, we find that the pro-government vote varies according to the very short-term rise and fall in the price of the main product found in each locality. The federal policy of price support for agricultural products is equally a voting determinant in certain elections; in fact, some unpopular decisions of the federal government are turned against the provincial government. In summary, electoral results are strongly influenced by very short-term economic circumstances, whether the government is responsible for them or not.

Les élections législatives du 13 octobre 1985 : Analyse des résultats

The main characteristics of the elections of 13th October 1985 seem to be the following.The turnout, as appears from the number of laid down ballot papers in relation to the number of registered voters, is slightly declining compared with 1981. It indeed amounted to 93.59 % against 94.56 % four years before. This rate of participation averages those of previous elections.The number of blank and spoilt ballot papers is rising very slightly. It totalled 7.45 % for the House of Representatives, against 7.37 % in 1981. This is again an average percentage compared with the previous general elections. It is considerably lower than the number of blank and spoilt ballot papers at the European elections of both 1979 and 1984.The extent of the shifts in votes is much lower than in 1981 and also averages those of the last year's elections.The votes are moving in a very similar way in the three regions of the country, although with one notable exception : the loss suffered by the PVV in Flanders. Apart from that, the Christian Democrats are registering a gain in the northern and southern parts of the country as well as in Brussels as far as the CVP is concerned ; the extent of the Socialist advance is the same in the three regions ; the loss suffered by the nationalist parties is general and the «green» lists are reinforcing their breakthrough everywhere.The parties of the outgoing coalition are improving their result, which very seldom happens at Belgian elections: Christian Democrats and Liberals are indeed progressing by 2.26 %. Another noteworthy element, however, is the fact that the ahead movement of the main oppositionparties is even more important than the majority's as the Socialists obtained 3.25 % more of the valid votes. Of course this double success took place at the expense of the nationalist parties, the Communists and some smaller lists.The shift in seats does not exactly reflect the shift in votes, because of a different distribution of the seats between the provinces, on the one hand, due to the variations in the number of inhabitants, and because of the concentration on certain lists of the allocation of the last seat, on the other.