2005
DOI: 10.1177/106591290505800205
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: In order to measure the strength of the parties in each state, the Major Party Index (MPI) was built by averaging the results of the six major elections that take place in the fifty states. This index allows us to describe the absolute and comparative partisan leaning of each state in each election and identify trends of party strength over time within individual states, among regions, and within the nation as a whole. The MPI sheds considerable light on three general developments: (1) a national change from D… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In measuring seat margin competition, I adapt a component of Ceaser and Saldin's (2005) measure of interparty competition across state governments. It specifically measures in each state, per biennium, the proportion of seats held by the Republican Party members relative to seats held by both Republican and Democratic Party members, averaged across the two chambers of a given state legislature.…”
Section: Covariates: Political Competition In the Electorate And In Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In measuring seat margin competition, I adapt a component of Ceaser and Saldin's (2005) measure of interparty competition across state governments. It specifically measures in each state, per biennium, the proportion of seats held by the Republican Party members relative to seats held by both Republican and Democratic Party members, averaged across the two chambers of a given state legislature.…”
Section: Covariates: Political Competition In the Electorate And In Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This ethnic‐based and ideological voting by southerners, or what Black (1998) referred to as “the newest southern politics,” mirrors the long‐standing electoral practices of Americans in other regions of the country. Additionally, southerners have found themselves to be part of the secular (as opposed to critical) realignment that has occurred nationally, with the South (and in more recent years such western states as Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Nevada) becoming more Republican and New England and the mid‐Atlantic states becoming more Democratic in voting behavior (Ceaser and Saldin 2005). This realignment was foreshadowed by Petrocik (1981) who documented the unraveling of the New Deal coalition and predicted that southern whites—particularly middle‐class and upper‐class whites—would be a key social group contributing to any realignment that might be taking place as early as the 1970s.…”
Section: Different Interpretations Of the 1994 Elections In The Southmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result of the 1991 redistricting not only were Democratic incumbents more vulnerable in 1994, but it also produced some new Republican incumbents in 1992. Additionally, while other authors suggest the 1994 election results were either the inevitable results of larger historical trends (Abramowitz and Saunders 1998; Black 1998; Black and Black 2002; Bullock 1988; Ceaser and Saldin 2005; Hood, Kidd, and Morris 1999; Knotts et al. 2005; Knuckey 2006; Lublin 2004; Norpoth 1987; Petrocik 1981) or while they focus on only one or two unique features of 1994 (Balz and Brownstein 1996), we suggest that long‐term trends and more proximate factors were important in southern House elections in 1994.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous studies have examined party competition in the American states (Bibby et al 1983;Ceaser and Saldin 2005;Holbrook and Van Dunk 1993;Jewell and Morehouse 2001;Key 1949;1958;Klarner 2013;Ranney 1976;Van Dunk and Weber 1997). Collectively, scholars have produced more than 9,600 articles and chapters in the last century that use contemporaneous measures of "party competition" to explain variations in welfare (Barrilleaux, Holbrook, and Langer 2002) and economic policies (Besley, Persson, and Sturm 2010), for example, as well as in electoral behaviors such as voter turnout (Flavin and Shufeldt 2015;Gray 1976).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%