National survey data demonstrate that support of the federal government decreased substantially between 1964 and 1970. Policy preference, a lack of perceived difference between the parties, and policy dissatisfaction were hypothesized as correlates of trust and alternative explanations of this decrease. Analysis revealed that the increased distrust in government, or cynicism, was associated with reactions to the issues of racial integration and U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. A curvilinear relationship was found between policy preference on these and other contemporary social issues and political cynicism. The minority favoring centrist policies was more likely to trust the government than the large proportion who preferred noncentrist policy alternatives. This complex relationship between trust and policy preference is explained by dissatisfaction with the policies of both political parties. The dissatisfied noncentrists formed highly polarized and distinct types: “cynics of the left,” who preferred policies providing social change, and “cynics of the right,” who favored policies of social control.

Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970.

In recent years, the Republican party has sharply narrowed the Democratic edge in overall party identification. Using New York Times/CBS News surveys (1980-1986) and earlier NES/CPS surveys, this analysis probes several explanations for that partisan change: generational replacement, conversion, and mobilization. The findings rule out conversion, give some support to mobilization, but emphasize the historically unique surge toward the GOP among the young since 1980. This break with the parental partisan legacy signals the prospect of a party realignment through generational replacement. Ever since Eisenhower's presidential campaign conquered the White House, the emergence of a Republican majority in the American electorate has been the object of much speculation. Some observers have eagerly prophesied that prospect, but others have shrugged it off as wishful thinking. Each new Republican conquest or successful defense of the White House revives the speculation, while electoral analysts sort out the evidence pro and con. That a party realignment is overdue, many would agree, but that one is actually under way, and that whatever is under way is here to stay, many would dispute. There is no denying that over the last three decades Republicans have done exceedingly well in winning presidential elections. Although, for the most part, they faced a Congress controlled by the other party, they could often rely on enough conservative members of Congress to govern effectively. In that sense, a party realignment may have long been consummated, but that it is not the same as saying that the Republican party has displaced the Democrats as the favorite of the American electorate. HELMUT NORPOTH is a Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. A note of thanks goes to the New York Times and CBS News for making available the data for this study. The research presented here has greatly benefited from discussions with Paul Allen Beck, George Bishop, Thad Brown, Adam Clymer, Shanto Iyengar, John Petrocik, Martin Plissner, Fred Steeper, and from a joint project with Barbara Farah. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 41st annual meeting of AAPOR in St. Petersburg, May 14-19, 1986. Public Opinion Quarterly Volume 51:376-391 ?) 1987 by the Amencan Association for Public Opinion Research Published by The University of Chicago Press / 0033-362X/87/0051-00/$2.50 Party Realignment in the 1980s 377 Our interest focuses on the basic partisan loyalties of American voters, commonly known as their \"party identifications\" (Campbell et al., 1960). While no immutable biological trait, this identification is no fickle opinion swaying with the prevailing wind. To be sure, a good portion of voters will not be guided by their identifications in casting their votes in any given election, but in most cases their party identifications have survived such acts of infidelity. Though aided by defections of Democratic voters, Eisenhower's and Nixon's victories failed to upend the basic partisan division and instead turned out to be \"deviating elections.\" Given the nature of party identification, a shift of basic loyalties massive enough to produce a realignment is bound to be a rare event. Historically, party realignments have occurred in cyclical fashion: in the 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and 1930s. The 1970s hence were due for another; and indeed there was no lack of symptoms. The majority party suffered from a sharp division over policy issues and along broad ideological lines. A seemingly hopeless combination of high inflation, unemployment, and no growth befell the national economy, undermining the historic reputation of the Democrats as the party of prosperity. Meanwhile in 1980, the Republican presidential candidate promised both a radical departure from the traditional New Deal policies and a resolution of the national condition diagnosed as \"malaise\" by the incumbent. Carter then became the first (elected) president to be voted out since 1932, when Hoover's defeat ushered in the New Deal realignment. Notions of Party Realignment Like few other notions, \"party realignment\" intrigues politicians as much as it does journalistic and scholarly observers of politics (see Key, 1955; Campbell et al., 1960; Phillips, 1969; Burnham, 1970; Broder, 1972; Sundquist, 1973; Petrocik, 1981). The most common notion of realignment is one where the overall balance of party support in the electorate shifts from one party to another. This may happen abruptly in a \"realigning election\" (Campbell et al., 1960: ch. 19) or, as Key (1955) called it, a \"critical election.\" But it may also happen more gradually in a realigning era, by means of a \"secular realignment.\" Another notion of realignment focuses on the composition of a party's electoral support rather than on the aggregate balance of the total electorate (Petrocik, 1981). Here the key aspect concerns the social groups that comprise a party's electoral coalition. A realignment occurs in the sense that one or more core groups of party A move to align themselves with party B, like blacks moving toward the Demo-

American association for public opinion research

The Changing American Voter.

While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distru...

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States

Figures Tables Preface The authors Introduction 1. Confronting the puzzles of voter turnout 2. A new approach to the calculus of voting 3. The role of generational replacement in turnout change 4. Rational responses to electoral competition 5. Explaining turnout change in 22 countries 6. Electoral competition and the individual citizen 7. Understanding turnout decline 8. The turnout puzzles revisited Appendices: A. The surveys employed in this book B. Aggregate data for established democracies, 1945-9 C. Supplementary findings Bibliography Author index Subject index.

/pdf/voter-turnout-and-the-dynamics-of-electoral-competition-in-3qpidmrkxz.pdf

Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945

The story of a presidential election year is in many ways the story of the actions and interactions of those considered as possible candidates for their nation's highest office. If this is true in the abstract, it certainly was true in the election of 1968. The political headlines of 1968 were captured by those who ran for the nominations of their parties, those who pondered over whether or not to run, those who chose to pull out of the race or were struck down during the campaign, those who raised a third party banner, and those who resisted suggestions to run outside the two-party structure. While 1968 may have been unusual in the extent to which many prospective candidates dominated the political scene, every presidential election is, in its own way, highlighted by those considered for the office of President. The political scientist has shown scholarly interest in the candidates. His interest, however, has been selective in its focus—mainly concentrating on the two actual party nominees and not the larger set of possible presidential candidates. Research in electoral behavior has detailed the popular image of the nominees in terms of the public's reactions to their record and experience, personal qualities, and party affiliation. Furthermore, attitudes toward the nominees have been shown to constitute a major short-term influence on the vote. Yet attitudes toward other candidates have been surveyed only to ascertain the behavior of those people who favored someone other than the ultimate nominees.

Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation

In the last two decades of political science, there has been considerable interest in the determinants of electoral behavior. Theories have been developed and tested on the sociological, psychological, and political antecedents of the vote. Virtually neglected in this search for determinants have been the institutional or structural properties of the electoral system itself. With a few notable exceptions, such factors as electoral qualification requirements, registration laws, and ballot and voting systems have not generated much research enthusiasm. These institutional properties, however, provide the framework within which the effects of other independent variables must be judged. This applies to all basic electoral research—whether time specific or longitudinal—but especially to the latter. Too often longitudinal research tries to trace the causes of changing voting patterns without taking into account the institutional framework. A pointed example of this is Walter Dean Burnham's recent description of this country's “changing political universe” around the turn of the century—a change which he ascribed to a breakdown in party competition and consequent voter alienation, but which undoubtedly could be partially, if not largely, explained by reference to the many institutional changes in voting rules which occurred during this period. The effects of institutional properties must be sorted out if the researcher is to establish reliable baselines against which to measure the effects of other variables. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of one such institutional property of the electoral system—the Australian Ballot reform—on the changing split ticket voting patterns of the American electorate in the 1876–1908 time period.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S000305540013343X

The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876–1908*

Without much question, the third-party movement of George C. Wallace constituted the most unusual feature of the 1968 presidential election. While this movement failed by a substantial margin in its audacious attempt to throw the presidential contest into the House of Representatives, in any other terms it was a striking success. It represented the first noteworthy intrusion on a two-party election in twenty years. The Wallace ticket drew a larger proportion of the popular vote than any third presidential slate since 1924, and a greater proportion of electoral votes than any such movement for more than a century, back to the curiously divided election of 1860. Indeed, the spectre of an electoral college stalemate loomed sufficiently large that serious efforts at reform have since taken root.At the same time, the Wallace candidacy was but one more dramatic addition to an unusually crowded rostrum of contenders, who throughout the spring season of primary elections were entering and leaving the lists under circumstances that ranged from the comic through the astonishing to the starkly tragic. Six months before the nominating conventions, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had been the expected 1968 protagonists, with some greater degree of uncertainty, as usual, within the ranks of the party out of power. The nominating process for the Republicans followed the most-probable script rather closely, with the only excitement being provided by the spectacle of Governors Romney and Rockefeller proceeding as through revolving doors in an ineffectual set of moves aimed at providing a Republican alternative to the Nixon candidacy. Where things were supposed to be most routine on the Democratic side, however, surprises were legion, including the early enthusiasm for Eugene McCarthy, President Johnson's shocking announcement that he would not run, the assassination of Robert Kennedy in the flush of his first electoral successes, and the dark turmoil in and around the Chicago nominating convention, with new figures like Senators George McGovern and Edward Kennedy coming into focus as challengers to the heir apparent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election

Comment: The American Electoral Universe: Speculation and Evidence

A data-rich historical picture of American elections and the American electorate, from 1789 to the present."A Statistical History of the American Electorate adds a new, never explored dimension to study of the nationAes political system. Rusk has examined thousands of pieces of information and masses of historical and contemporary numerical data on elections to draw a new picture of our evolving voting ways and byways. His book adds immeasurably to the abundant literature about actual results and voting returns from specific elections by gathering data over time - 200 years - and casting it into historical patterns. The material in each of his eight chapters is introduced with an essay that explains the data and its importance, and sets it all in context."Chapters include: "Election Laws and Suffrage. Lists and dates election laws that define the eligible electorate. Describes qualifications such as property owner-ship, paying taxes, residency, sex, literacy, and many more. Also discusses popular electoral participation such as the initiative and referendum. "Voting Participation. Lists three forms of voting participation - turnout, mobilization, and eligibility - as percentage values by the nation, region, and state. This analysis casts light on voter activity as well as the portion of citizens entitled (or barred) from participating at different times in U.S. history."Presidential, House, Senate, and Gubernatorial Voting. These four chapters show partisan vote percentages at the national, regional, and state level for Democratic, Republican, and Other categories and the Democratic percent of the major two-party vote. The author uses conventional designations of political parties as well as newly designed alternative descriptions that give a more accurate reflection of the partisan nature of each state. "Measures of Voting Behavior. Using data from the other chapters, Rusk shows over 200 years of party competition, partisan swing, split-ticket voting, partisan strength and many other dimensions of the electoral system."No other volume brings together such a rich variety of information and sets it in an analytical context. A must-purchase for scholars, graduate and undergraduate students, libraries with political science collections, and anyone interested in the American electoral system."

Jerrold G. Rusk

Papers

Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation

The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876–1908*

Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election

Comment: The American Electoral Universe: Speculation and Evidence

A Statistical History of the American Electorate