Dollars on the Sidewalk: Should U.S. Presidential Candidates Advertise in Uncontested States?

Presidential candidates in the United States do not intentionally advertise in states without rigorous competition for electoral votes. However, in some areas of noncompetitive states, media markets overlap with battleground states, exposing these regions to political ads. These spillover advertisements allow us to examine the relationship between advertisements and individual campaign contributions, with data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project and the Federal Elections Commission. Using propensity‐score matching within uncontested states, we find that 2008 aggregate giving in zip codes exposed to political ads was approximately $6,100 (28.1% of mean contributions) more than in similar zip codes without advertisements.     

Does the Ideological Proximity Between Candidates and Voters Affect Voting in U.S. House Elections?

Do citizens hold congressional candidates accountable for their policy positions? Recent studies reach different conclusions on this important question. In line with the predictions of spatial voting theory, a number of recent survey-based studies have found reassuring evidence that voters choose the candidate with the most spatially proximate policy positions. In contrast, most electoral studies find that candidates’ ideological moderation has only a small association with vote margins, especially in the modern, polarized Congress. We bring clarity to these discordant findings using the largest dataset to date of voting behavior in congressional elections. We find that the ideological positions of congressional candidates have only a small association with citizens’ voting behavior. Instead, citizens cast their votes “as if” based on proximity to parties rather than individual candidates. The modest degree of candidate-centered spatial voting in recent Congressional elections may help explain the polarization and lack of responsiveness in the contemporary Congress.     

National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012

In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. To capture the full impact of divisiveness in presidential campaigns, one must estimate both the impact of national party division (NPD) and the impact of divisive primaries in individual states. To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.     

Reconciling Sexism and Women’s Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender,Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races

Political Behavior - Much of the gender gap literature focuses on women’s greater average liberalism relative to men. This approach masks considerable heterogeneity in political identity and...     

Why are African American Governors and U.S. Senators so Rare? Exploring White Voters’ Responses to African American Statewide Candidates

Political Behavior - Despite making notable gains at the local level, very few African Americans have been elected to the high-profile statewide offices of governor or U.S. senator. Previous...     

Identities of Competitive States in U.S. Presidential Elections: Electoral College Bias or Candidate-Centered Politics?

When discussing the biases of the U.S. Electoral College, researchersconclude that competitive states seem to occur randomly withoutany explanation. This study examines the consistency with whichthe same states have been competitive in presidential electionsfrom 1824 to 2000. It also identifies "spectator" states. Spectatorstates are those that have not been competitive for ten presidentialelections in a row. A statistical analysis illustrates thatthe identities of competitive states have become more unpredictable.In addition, few states have been spectators for long periods.In terms of representation, the facts that competitive statesare not consistent and that there are few spectators mean differentstates are in the presidential spotlight at different times.As opposed to any biases associated with the Electoral College,the changes in consistency coincide with the rise of candidate-centeredpolitics and decreasing voter loyalty to parties. The highlychangeable nature of competitive states strengthens the federalismargument for continuation of the Electoral College.     

Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.     

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?

What role in the administration of elections will the new U.S.Election Assistance Commission (EAC) play, and how does thatrole differ from past federal involvement? The answers are uncertainbecause delays in appointing the commission members and insufficientfunding severely handicapped early activities. This articleexamines the factors that influence the EAC's emerging role:the commission's background, structure, tasks and tools, start-upactivities, and recent issues. Because the principal impactof the EAC is indirect, affecting election administration throughthe states, we draw on the "tools of government" literatureto frame the discussion. Although the Help America Vote Actof 2002, which created the EAC, continues a long line of federalregulatory mandates in the elections arena, the EAC has almostno regulatory authority. Its principal tools are grants andinformation—instruments of cooperative, rather than coercive,federalism. Given that the major grant programs are ending,the EAC's long-term contribution will likely be to create anddisseminate information.     

Incumbent positioning, ideological heterogeneity and?mobilization in U.S. House elections

This article examines whether the need to mobilize citizens pushes incumbents to the ideological extremes in U.S. House elections. We test whether incumbents are more ideologically extreme as the ideological heterogeneity of the district increases and if turnout increases as incumbents become more extreme. These tests combined with the observation that divergence decreases with competitiveness suggest that candidates balance the need to attract swing voters with the need to mobilize supporters. The results also suggest that the growth in elite polarization is linked to the growing ideological heterogeneity in the electorate.     

How Does Regulation Affect the Risk Taking of Banks? A U.S. and Canadian Perspective

This historical study utilizes annual insured bank data from 1936 through 1989 to empirically evaluate the impact of bank regulation on bank risk taking in a cross-country comparison of the United States and Canada. Risk is hypothesized to be determined, in part, by the regulatory environment in which a bank operates. The findings of this analysis contributes to the contemporary deregulation policy debate, since both branch banking restrictions and deposit insurance variables are found to be detrimental to bank stability. More specifically, these results support the 1994 Riegle–Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which removed legislative barriers to interstate branching. These results also confirm expectations that deposit insurance increases risk taking and supports the 1991 mandate by regulators that risk-based deposit insurance be created. Further, these findings support the 1988 Basel Accord to standardize bank capital requirements internationally and to link these standards to bank risk taking.     

What Role Does the "Federalism Bonus" Play in Presidential Selection?

The conflicting outcome of the electoral and popular votes inthe 2000 presidential election provoked calls to abolish oralter the electoral college. One prominent criticism is thatthe institution distorts election outcomes by providing disproportionateinfluence to small states. If each state receives a number ofpresidential electors equal to that states' number of membersin the U.S. House of Representatives plus the two senators,then the "federalism bonus" represents the two electoral collegevotes that correspond to the position of each state as an equalentity in the Senate. This research examines how the "federalismbonus" influences presidential selection by addressing threequestions. First, why did the framers include a federal componentin the electoral college? Second, under what circumstances hasthe "federalism bonus" played a role in presidential selection?Third, how would the various alternatives for reform affectthe federal component of the electoral college, and what isthe likelihood of adoption for each?     

Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?

Bartels and Johnston have recently presented evidence suggesting that the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court is grounded in the ideological preferences and perceptions of the American people. In addition, they offer experimental data purporting to show that dissatisfaction with a single Court decision substantially diminishes the institution's legitimacy. These findings strongly break with earlier research on the Court's institutional support, as the authors recognize. The theoretical implications of their findings are profound. If the authors are correct that legitimacy is strongly dependent upon satisfying the policy preferences and ideological predilections of the American people, the essence of legitimacy is fundamentally transformed. Consequently, we reinvestigate the relationships among ideology, performance satisfaction, and Court legitimacy, unearthing empirical findings that diverge markedly from theirs. We conclude with some thoughts about how the Court's “countermajoritarian dilemma” can be reconceptualized and recalculated, once more drawing conclusions sharply at odds with those of Bartels and Johnston.     

Candidate and party affective polarization in U.S. presidential elections: The person-negativity bias?

We investigate the degree of affective polarization in presidential election years toward the two major parties and their nominees. Notwithstanding studies which show that individuating information about an out-group member can generate a person-positivity bias, we demonstrate a person-negativity bias directed at out-party candidates at least for some. We motivate and test two hypotheses: first, we expect more sophisticated partisans to display a greater difference in their feelings towards specific candidates compared to evaluations of the parties themselves; second, we anticipate sophisticated partisans will exhibit a person-negativity bias toward out-party candidates and a person-positivity bias toward in-party candidates. The results accentuate the conditional nature of the person-positivity bias and shed light on how political sophistication is linked to affective polarization.     

Giving the People What They Want? The Distribution of Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives

The common wisdom in journalistic accounts of earmarking is that Congress distributes earmarks on a purely political basis, without any consideration for the demand for federal spending. Academic accounts similarly argue that factors internal to Congress are preeminent in determining where earmarks go, even more than for other types of pork‐barrel spending. Using earmarks appearing in the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations bills, I search for both chamber‐based and demand‐side determinants of the distribution of earmarks. I find that both types of factors are significantly related to the number of earmarks that a House member receives. This result indicates that even while earmarking, members of Congress are at least minimally responsive to voter preferences and calls into question whether earmarks should be treated as an outlier within the universe of spending allocation mechanisms.     

Timely shirking: time-dependent monitoring and?its?effects on legislative behavior in the U.S. Senate

We examine legislative shirking under conditions of imperfect constituent monitoring. Our core argument states that variation in information costs and constituent memory leads to systematic variation in constituent monitoring over time. Assuming that legislators are responsive to multiple cues, we expect to observe time-dependent legislative shirking. We develop a theoretical model of legislative behavior with time-dependent monitoring, which we test empirically using Senate roll call data. Our findings show that a substantial number of senators engage in systematic, time-dependent shirking, and that senators consistently move toward extreme positions when monitoring is low and toward moderate positions when it is high.     

Does U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Training Constitute a Type of Civic Education?

In what respects can military basic training affect veterans’ civic identities? According to a 2015 report published by the National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC), military service positively affects civic health. While social scientists have also noted this possible connection, little attention has been paid to how and why this link might exist. To test the purported relationship between military training and increased civic capacities, I explored the United States Marine Corps’ (USMC) Recruit Training program. I conducted 20 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 17 enlisted Marine veterans and Marine drill instructors (DI) to ascertain their perceptions of the pedagogical aspirations of their service’s recruit training. The study’s participants reported that Marine Corps Recruit Training does seek to inculcate skills, values, and habits that are consistent with a civic identity as discussed in the civic-engagement and civic-education literature.     

Something Alien? The Limits of U.S. Influence in UK Campaigns

The campaign consulting business in the United States is the largest in the world and has had some success in globally exporting its expertise in terms of both personnel and technique. This paper reflects on the so-called “Americanization” of British elections and draws attention to some of the significant landmarks in the relationship between strategists in the two countries. The discussion does, however, identify the limitations of this idea as an organizing concept for understanding how election campaigning has developed in the United Kingdom.