Political Behavior

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 81–95 | Cite as

The politics of disgruntlement: Nonvoting and defection among supporters of nomination losers, 1968–1984

  • Priscilla L. Southwell
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effect of disgruntlement among those primary voters who supported U.S. presidential nomination losers. It analyzes the general election voting behavior of primary voters in the last five presidential elections in order to determine if differences exist between those supporters of the winning nominee in each party and backers of other candidates who also sought the nomination. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of voter turnout shows significant results only for the Democrats in 1972, when primary voters who supported candidates other than George McGovern were more likely to abstain in the general election. Taking into account the option of defecting to another party in November, both parties appear to have been plagued by a considerable amount of disloyalty on the part of supporters of candidates who failed to win the nomination, although for the Republicans this type of response is confined to the 1980 election. The existence of a third party or independent candidacy may be an important variable influencing the behavior of these disgruntled primary voters.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein, Robert A. (1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races, 1956–1972.American Political Science Review 71: 540–545.Google Scholar
  2. Born, R. (1981). The influence of House primary election divisiveness on general election margins, 1972–76.Journal of Politics 43: 640–661.Google Scholar
  3. Cassel, C., and Hill, D. B. (1981). Explanations of turnout decline.American Politics Quarterly 9: 181–194.Google Scholar
  4. Comer, J. (1976). Another look at the divisive primary.American Politics Quarterly 4: 121–128.Google Scholar
  5. Gilmour, R. S., and Lamb, R. B. (1975).Political Alienation in Contemporary America. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
  6. Hacker, A. (1965). Does a “divisive” primary harm a candidate's election chances?American Political Science Review 59: 105–110.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, D. B., and Gibson, J. R. (1974). The divisive primary revisited: Party activists in Iowa.American Political Science Review 68: 67–77.Google Scholar
  8. Piereson, J. E., and Smith, T. B. (1975). Primary divisiveness and general election success: A reexamination.Journal of Politics 37: 555–562.Google Scholar
  9. Pindyck, R. S., and Rubenfeld, D. (1976).Economic Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenbaum, D. E. (1984). Jackson vote-delegate disparity poses key problem for Democrats.The New York Times, May 20, pp. 1, 19.Google Scholar
  11. Sorauf, F. (1984).Party Politics in America (5th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  12. Stone, W. (1984). Prenomination candidate choice and general election behavior: Iowa presidential activists in 1980.American Journal of Political Science 28: 361–378.Google Scholar
  13. Sullivan, D. G. (1977–78). Party unity: Appearance and reality.Political Science Quarterly 92: 635–645.Google Scholar
  14. Zipp, J. F. (1985). Perceived representativeness and voting: An assessment of the impact of “choices” vs. “echoes.”American Political Science Review 79: 50–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priscilla L. Southwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OregonUSA

Personalised recommendations