Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 337–354 | Cite as

Sorting and the Split-Ticket: Evidence from Presidential and Subpresidential Elections

  • Nicholas T. Davis
  • Lilliana Mason
Original Paper

Abstract

Although prior research demonstrates that strong partisans are less likely to cast a split-ticket, recent scholarly work hints that partisan-ideological sorting—the matching of an individual’s partisan and ideological identities—may play a comparatively stronger role in shaping this voting behavior. Simply, if a high degree of congruence between identities underscores psychological orientations that prevent association with an out-group, then highly-sorted voters should be less likely to cross-party lines within the voting booth. Using the 1972–2012 ANES Time-Series and 2010 CCES surveys, we provide evidence that demonstrates that a high degree of partisan-ideological sorting produces the strongest negative effect on split-ticket voting among a variety of alternative explanations at both the national and subnational levels. We then supplement these analyses with 1992–1996 ANES panel data to demonstrate how changes in sorting over time affect this voting behavior. Our results indicate that although an increase in partisan strength alone is insufficient to reduce an individual’s propensity to cast a split-ticket, an increase in identity sorting over time has a strong negative effect on split-ticket voting. We conclude with a brief discussion about the consequences of identity convergence; namely, that sorting fosters a unique form of electoral “polarization.”

Keywords

Sorting Ticket-splitting Electoral polarization 

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9315_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (220 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 220 kb)

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and american democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is Polarization a Myth? American Journal of Political Science, 70(2), 542–555.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, P. A., Baum, L., Clausen, A. R., & Smith, C. E. (1992). Patterns and sources of ticket splitting in subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review, 86, 916–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burden, B. C. (Ed.). (2002). Uncertainty in American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (2004). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, A., & Miller, W. E. (1957). The motivational basis of straight and split-ticket voting. American Political Science Review, 51, 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carsey, T. R., & Layman, G. C. (2004). Policy Balancing and Preferences for Party Control of Government. Political Research Quarterly57(4), 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, N. (2015). The Role of Indifference in Split-Ticket Voting. Political Behavior37, 67–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2012). Ideology in America (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenno, R. F., Jr. (1975). If, as Ralph Nader Says, Congress is ‘The Broken Branch’, How Come We Love Our Congressmen So Much? In N. J. Ornstein (Ed.), Congress in change: Evolution and reform (pp. 277–287). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized American (3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M. P., & Levendusky, M. S. (2006). Disconnected: The Political Class versus the People. In Pietro. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (pp. 49–71). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24, 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan, R. (2004). Challenger emergence, incumbent success, and electoral accountability in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1283–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aaroe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lavine, H., Johnson, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, L. (2015). ‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulligan, K. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32(3), 505–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Government and PoliticsUniversity of Maryland, College ParkCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations