Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Party nonconformists--that is, moderate to conservative Democrats and moderate to liberal Republicans who had policy preferences different from the mainstream of their party--have largely disappeared from the Senate. As nonconformists disappeared from both parties, each caucus became less ideologically diverse and congressional parties polarized. Much of the research on party polarization in Congress has focused on the House and on the realignment in the South that led to the demise of conservative Southern Democrats. Yet we show that there are parallel trends of escalating partisanship in both parties in both the House and Senate. The explanations of why Senate parties polarized and why Republican nonconformists have disappeared, however, are less clear. Part of the explanation of polarization in the House applies to the Senate--the most likely cause is electoral and electoral changes in the South provide an answer for the disappearance of nonconformist Democrats. But since state boundaries are not subject to partisan gerrymandering and since moderate and liberal Republicans have also disappeared, there must be additional electoral processes that produced more homogeneous parties in the Senate. This paper seeks to provide a more complete understanding of how and why Senate parties polarized. We find:
1. Partisan nonconformists were elected disproportionately from states that favor the other party--i.e., nonconformists Democrats tend to come from “red” states and nonconformists Republicans tend to come from “blue” states.
2. The ability of a party’s candidates to win on the other party’s turf has changed over time, but this change has not affected both parties equally. In particular, Democrats’ ability to hold seats in red and competitive states has declined since the early 1980s, while Republicans have maintained their ability to hold Senate seats in blue states and they are more successful in competitive states.
3. When a party does win on the other party’s turf, the likelihood of electing a mainstream partisan has increased over time. Moderate and conservative Democrats have disappeared because there are just fewer Democrats elected in red and competitive states. Republican success in blue and competitive states has not declined, but nonconformist Republicans have disappeared because mainstream Republicans can win in states that once elected moderates.
4. The ability to elect mainstream Republicans in blue and competitive states is due in part to changes in Senate electorates and the preferences of Republican voters.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The propensity of individuals to take part in the electoral process has long been associated with a variety of contextual influences. Variations in the partisan composition of local environments have been among those factors that researchers have used to explain differences in the propensity to vote. This paper proposes to explore whether geographic variations in the homogeneity/heterogeneity of a variety of group environments contributes to an explanation of voter turnout in Erie County, New York. Using voter registration and census information, we have assembled a multilevel dataset comprised of the voting records and demographic characteristics of a sample of registered voters (N=137,012) for roughly the last decade (1996-2004). To this, we have added information on the political heterogeneity of their households (N=72,646). Finally, using data for the 985 electoral districts in Erie County, we distinguish individuals whose partisan registration conforms to that prevailing in their district and all others. Using multilevel methods (HLM) with this data, we can simultaneously estimate the independent and joint effects on turnout of a variety of the nested contexts in which individuals practice their politics. Our analysis uncovers strong evidence that the homogeneous households reinforce participatory behaviors independent of the effects of the larger context.

Supporting Publications:
Supporting Document

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Time-of-vote decision has been suggested as a key mediator of campaign effects. Political communication researchers, nonetheless, face two challenges in attempt to understand these effects: (a) variability in political information environments--one-sided vs. mixed or “crosscutting” news information flows, and (b) variability in individual openness to persuasion--probability of both reception and acceptance of campaign information. We synthesize theoretical insights from the Columbia School 1940s campaign studies (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944) and the Converse-McGuire-Zaller reception-acceptance model (Zaller, 1992) to test the interactive effects of contextual information heterogeneity and individual receptivity to campaign information on vote decision-time. Employing a quasi-experimental design that contrasts one- and two-sided flows, detailed campaign-news content analyses, and exit-poll data, we find support for the hypothesized relationship between information heterogeneity, individual ambivalence, and time of decision. Implications of these findings for future research in political communication are discussed in conclusion.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The study proposes an explanation that integrates conflicting findings on exposure to disagreement and time of voting decision. Cross-pressures are beneficial for some people and detrimental for others. ANES 2000 data supports this explanation.