A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology

McGhee, Eric; Masket, Seth E.; Shor, Boris; Rogers, Steven; McCarty, Nolan

doi:10.1111/ajps.12070

Cited by 124 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet we are still searching for reasons as to why Congress is becoming more and more polarized with almost each election cycle. There is little empirical evidence to support the claim that gerrymandering and primary election systems have had a substantial effect on congressional polarization (Hirano et al 2010;McCarty et al 2009;McGhee et al 2013; see also Sides and Vavreck 2013). And Fiorina et al (2006) further illustrate how extremist voters, or at least sorted ones, can elect moderate candidates if these candidates are positioned at the ideological center.…”

Section: The Decline Of Moderates In the Us Congressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress

Thomsen

2014

The Journal of Politics

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have focused on elite-level and mass-level changes to explain partisan polarization in Congress. This article offers a candidate entry explanation for the persistence of polarization and the rise in asymmetric polarization. The central claim is that ideological conformity with the party-what I call Party Fit-influences the decision to run for office, and I suggest that partisan polarization in Congress has discouraged ideological moderates in the pipeline from pursuing a congressional career. I test this hypothesis with a survey of state legislators and with ideology estimates of state legislators who did and did not run for Congress from 2000 to 2010. I find that liberal Republican and conservative Democratic state legislators are less likely to run for Congress than those at the ideological poles, though this disparity is especially pronounced among Republicans. The findings provide an additional explanation for recent patterns of polarization in Congress. This article contributes to the polarization literature by offering a candidate entry explanation that highlights ideological variation in the types of candidates who run for Congress.The central claim is that ideological conformity with the party's ideological reputation-what I call Party Fit-influences the decision to run for office. A party's ideological reputation conveys information about the type of candidate that belongs in the party, and potential candidates draw on this reputation to determine if they can achieve their electoral and policy goals and to decide whether to run for office. The Party Fit hypothesis suggests that in the contemporary political context, partisan polarization in Congress has discouraged ideological moderates in the political pipeline from pursuing a congressional career. I test this hypothesis with survey data of the perceptions of state legislators (Maestas et al. 2006;Stone et al. 2004) article focuses on the self-selection mechanism. However, the argument does not preclude a role for parties, and it is likely that party recruitment also shapes perceptions of Party Fit. In addition, the theoretical expectations apply to both incumbent and non-incumbent candidates, but because replacement processes have been central to the rise in polarization, I focus on the latter, and more specifically, on non-incumbents who are well situated to run for Congress.There are many reasons to expect that potential candidates rely on the party's reputation to determine if they can achieve their electoral and policy goals (Fenno 1973; Mayhew 1974). 3 First, potential candidates draw on this reputation to estimate their likelihood of winning. Sniderman and Stiglitz (2012) show that candidates receive a reputational premium if they take a 3 Potential candidates can learn about the party's reputation through a variety of ways, such as polls, the media, and past candidates, but the ideological makeup of the party delegation is the best measure of the party's reputation. What is important is that this reputation provides diffe...

show abstract

Section: The Decline Of Moderates In the Us Congressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress

Thomsen

2014

The Journal of Politics

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 These control variables account for candidate type (Jacobson, 1990;Jacobson and Kernell, 1983) (Gerber and Morton, 1998;Kaufmann, Gimpel and Hoffman, 2003;McGhee et al, 2014). We exclude all nonpartisan primaries.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationship between primary rules and candidate ideology follows the logic of spatial voting laid out by Downs (1957): closed primaries feature more partisan electorates and attract more ideologically extreme candidates, while the ideologically diverse electorates of open primaries attract more moderate candidates (Ansolabehere, Snyder and Stewart, 2001;Burden, 2004;Fiorina, 1999). However, other scholars argue that this relationship is not as clear as the Downsian story predicts and that different rules may lead to outcomes that defy Downsian logic (McGhee et al, 2014;Kanthak and Morton, 2001). …”

Section: Candidates and Constituenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology

Nielson¹,

Visalvanich²

2015

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary elections in the United States have been under-studied in the political science literature. Using new data to estimate the ideal points of primary election candidates and constituents, we examine the link between the ideological leanings of primary electorates and the ideological orientation of U.S. congressional candidates. We use district-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and ideal point estimates for congressional primary election candidates to examine the role of primary electorate ideology in the selection of party nominees. We find that more extreme Republicans are more likely to win their party's primary and that Republican and Democratic candidates are responsive to different electoral constituencies.

show abstract

“…Using data originally developed by Shor and McCarty (Shor & McCarty, 2011), McGee et al found little evidence to support the theory that primary types play an important role in polarization of legislatures (McGhee, Masket, Shor, Rogers, & McCarty, 2014). Moreover, the evidence found goes against the conventional wisdom, finding that rather than moderating candidates open primaries create more extreme partisans (Ibid).…”

Section: Party Primaries and Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarization, Inequality, and the State Legislatures

May¹,

Pirch²

2016

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While legislative polarization at the national level has been carefully examined and largely explained, the causes of polarization in state legislatures have been more elusive. Studies examining factors such as gerrymandering and party primaries as possible explanations have found largely undetectable or at best very modest relationships between these variables and levels of polarization. This paper provides an explanation of state legislative polarization based on socio-economic and demographic factors within the states. Economics and demographics have long played a significant role in understanding party choice, vote choice, the decision to abstain or vote, and support for various policies. Because of this we explore if these factors also influence polarization of state legislatures. Utilizing the Shorr-McCarty polarization data for state legislatures, which provides the differences between the mean Democratic and Republican legislator scores, and controlling for important economic and demographic factors, we explain a significant amount of the polarization existing in state legislatures. These findings present a fascinating look into not only the root causes of polarization in state legislatures, but also point to some fundamental differences in politics and ideology at the state and national levels.

show abstract

A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology

Cited by 124 publications

References 31 publications

Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress

Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress

Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology

Polarization, Inequality, and the State Legislatures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About