Occupational Class and Vote in the 1949 Norwegian Election. Research Note

In 1948–49 the Sociology Office of the University of Oslo, under the guidance of Prof. Paul Lazarsfeld of Columbia University, initiated a series of studies on the Norwegian economic planning system. Part of this Planning Project was a national election survey in the fall of 1949, on a modified probability sample of 2600 people. The results show the paramount influence of economic class on voting, interpreting class as a combination of employer/employee relationship, property ownership, prestige-status, and income. Indicators of the homogeneity of class environment also played a role. Given the occupational structure of Norway, the Labor party had to win over part of the non-working-class population to obtain control of the government. They did this by winning about 1/3 of the white-collar vote, and about 1/4 of the farmers and fishermen. The policies of economic stabilization - control of inflation through price controls, wage controls, food subsidies, and rationing, and maintenance of full employment under conditions of "suppressed inflation" - were crucial to winning over these white-collar and farm voters.     

Repairing the Crack in New Orleans' Black Vote: VRA's Results Test Nullifies "Gerryduck"

In 1982, Section 2 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act was amendedto allow plaintiffs to prevail in voting rights litigation ifthey demonstrate that a challenged law or practice has a discriminatoryresult. One of the first applications of this new statutoryprovision invalidated a congressional districting plan for theNew Orleans metropolitan area, a plan that had divided the city'sblack population virtually in half. This article reviews boththe making and the unmaking of that plan, derisively known asthe "gerryduck." Although the judicial action invalidating thisexercise in racial cartography demonstrates the potential importanceof this new section of the VRA as a legal weapon against minorityvote dilution, the results test provides federal judges withenormous discretion, and the application of the test may thereforebe quite capricious.     

Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants

How campaigns shape voters' decisions is central to the study of political behavior. The basic conclusion is simple: campaigns matter. While we know who campaigns influence, there is no clear empirical evidence of why or how campaigns matter. This comes from two things. First, despite different theories about campaigns, the existing studies measure the campaign as a function of time. Second, these studies ignore the individual-level psychological mediators of these effects. We know that there are differences across time during a campaign, but we do not know how or why. In this article I suggest that campaigns work by altering voters' uncertainty about the candidates and combine aggregate and individual-level data using a hierarchical logit estimated via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. I find that voters change how they weigh their attitudes during the campaign because of changes in their uncertainty about the candidates.