Military service has the capacity to inculcate members with politically relevant traits that influence political participation later in life. Results from three decades of pooled national cross-sectional data among males indicate that previous experience with the military, the most controlling and least democratic facet of American democracy, has a largely positive effect on turnout propensity. For WWII, Korean War, and post-conscription era veterans, previous military service positively influences turnout when compared to contemporaries without military service, while Vietnam-era veterans exhibited lower turnout rates than non-veteran peers. Evidence suggests that socialization effects rival self-selection bias in explaining increased veteran turnout.
An enduring assumption exists in the United States that past military service casts electoral candidates in a positive light. To demonstrate how voters understand candidates' military experiences, it is necessary to understand how their attitudes about a candidate change when exposed to biographic information. This study uses an experimental design to evaluate whether voters see candidates with a military background as better able to handle defense and security issues, are more capable leaders, and whether voters express higher affect toward veteran candidates. Using manipulated television advertising and handbills from an actual election, along with variation of the party information about the candidate, this study finds that voters are unmoved in their impressions of leadership and their affect toward a candidate with military experience. However, potential voters report markedly higher evaluations of candidates' ability to handle defense and security issues when exposed to the military cue, irrespective of party affiliation.
Objectives. The largest increase of any ancestry group between the 1990 and 2000 Census in the United States were “unhyphenated Americans,” those whites who claimed an “American” or no ancestry. This article measures this group's voting habits in the 2008 elections.
Methods. With individual‐level attitudinal data and county‐level voting data from the 2008 primary and 2000–2008 general elections, the analyses use quantitative methods to estimate unhyphenated Americans' voting behavior.
Results. Evidence indicates a strong rejection of Obama among counties with high proportions of unhyphenated Americans in both the 2008 primary and general elections.
Conclusion. While spatially concentrated in and near Appalachia, unhyphenated Americans' politics are distinctive irrespective of socioeconomic status, religion, and geography, being one of the few groups in which Barack Obama lost votes compared to previous Democratic nominees. Variation in the share of unhyphenated Americans explains more of the difference between 2008 and past elections than variation in the share of African Americans per county.
Objective. In this article we assess the partisan effects of five plans proposed by Republican state legislators during Texas' 2003 congressional redistricting.
Methods. Using the JudgeIt statistical program developed by Gelman and King (2001), and data provided by the Texas Legislative Council, we assess the bias, responsiveness, and the probability that the Democratic Party wins each district for each plan.
Results. All five Republican plans, including the one enacted, are strongly biased in favor of the Republican Party.
Conclusions. Texas' Democratic legislators were wise to use every parliamentary maneuver available to block the enactment of a new congressional map. Beyond affecting the partisan makeup of the Texas delegation, Texas' redistricting has national implications because it adds to the GOP's narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.