Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 176, Issue 1–2, pp 107–132 | Cite as

Southern realignment, party sorting, and the polarization of American primary electorates, 1958–2012

  • Seth J. Hill
  • Chris Tausanovitch
Article

Abstract

Many scholars have argued that primary elections are an important factor in the polarization of the American Congress. Yet little research measures change in the policy preferences of primary electorates to evaluate the connection directly. We create the first explicit measures of the preferences of primary voters over the last 60 years using a Bayesian item-response theory model. Although the overall distribution of population preferences has changed little, the preferences of primary voters are now much more related to the party of the primary that they attend. We show that liberals are much more likely to turn out in Democratic primaries and conservatives are much more likely to turn out in Republican primaries. We estimate that the divergence of primary from general electorates is six times larger in 2012 than in 1958 owing to this “primary sorting”. This trend began with the emergence of the Southern Republicans. As the Republican party became viable, conservative Southerners switched to Republican primaries leading to a leftward shift in Democratic primary electorates. Nationwide, primary sorting began sometime after it began in the South. We speculate that Southern realignment played a clarifying role that contributed to subsequent sorting of primary electorates nationwide.

Keywords

Political polarization Primary elections Southern realignment Bayesian methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sara Kerosky for research assistance and Greg Huber, Gary Jacobson, Matt Levendusky, Nolan McCarty, and participants in the 2016 Arizona State University Goldwater Conference for valuable feedback.

References

  1. American National Election Studies. (2014). The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org) Time Series Cumulative Data File [dataset]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers and distributors].
  2. Aranson, P. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1972). Spatial strategies for sequential elections. In R. G. Niemi & H. F. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  3. Black, E., & Black, M. (2009). The rise of southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, M. (1978). Racial composition of congressional districts and support for federalvoting rights In the American south. Social Science Quarterly, 59(3), 435–450.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, D. W., Han, H., & Pope, J. C. (2007). Primary elections and candidate ideology: Out of step with the primary electorate? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bullock, W., & Clinton, J. D. (2011). More a molehill than a mountain: The effects of the blanket primary on elected officials behavior from California. The Journal of Politics, 73(03), 915–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(01), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clinton, J., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review, 98(02), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1971). Internal processes governing party positions in elections. Public Choice, 11, 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2012). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in American politics. Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics, 70(02), 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. (2005). Culture war?. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han, H., & Brady, D. W. (2007). A delayed return to historical norms: Congressional party polarization after the Second World War. British Journal of Political Science, 37(03), 505–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hetherington, M. J. (2009). Review article: Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39(02), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, S. J. (2015). Institution of nomination and the policy ideology of primary electorates. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 461–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, S. J., & Tausanovitch, C. (2015). A disconnect in representation? Comparison of trends in congressional and public polarization. The Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr., Ansolabehere, S., & Hansen, J. M. (2010). Primary elections and partisan polarization in the US Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hood, M. V., Kidd, Q., & Morris, I. L. (2001). The key issue: Constituency effects and southern senators’ roll-call voting on civil rights. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(4), 599–621.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, G. C. (2003). Partisan polarization in presidential support: The electoral connection. Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies, 30(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson, G. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics evidence from the 2010 cooperative congressional election study. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Levendusky, M. (2009a). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levendusky, M. S. (2009b). The microfoundations of mass polarization. Political Analysis, 17(2), 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. McGhee, E., Masket, S., Shor, B., Rogers, S., & McCarty, N. (2014). A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKee, S. C., & Hayes, D. (2009). Polls and elections: Dixie’s Kingmakers: Stability and change in southern presidential primary electorates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nivola, P. S., & Brady, D. W. (2007). Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  34. Norrander, B., & Wendland, J. (2016). Open versus closed primaries and the ideological composition of presidential primary electorates. Electoral Studies, 42, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polsby, N. W. (2005). How Congress evolves: Social bases of institutional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  37. Reiter, H. L., & Stonecash, J. M. (2011). Counter realignment: Political change in the northeastern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schickler, E. (2016). Racial realignment: the transformation of American liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton studies in American politics: Historical, international, and comparative perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shafer, B. E., & Johnston, R. (2009). The end of Southern exceptionalism: Class, race, and partisan change in the postwar South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sides, J. M., Tausanovitch, C., Warshaw, C., & Vavreck, L. (2014). On the representativeness of primary voters. In The Annual Midwestern Political Science Association Conference.Google Scholar
  41. Theriault, S. M. (2006). Party polarization in the US Congress member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomsen, D. M. (2014). Ideological moderates won’t run: How party fit matters for partisan polarization in Congress. The Journal of Politics, 76(03), 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vavreck, L. (2007). The exaggerated effects of advertising on turnout: The dangers of self-reports. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Voteview Blog, The. (2015). Polarization continues through 2015. (December 28).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations