Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Preferences for Divided Government: Some Americans Want Divided Government and Vote to Create It

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tests of theories of the electoral origins of divided government hinge on the proper measurement of voter preferences for divided government. Deriving preferences for divided government from voters’ ideological positions or responses to the standard American National Election Studies question inflates estimates of the proportion of people who prefer divided government. We present two alternative survey measures of preferences for divided government and evaluate the measures across multiple surveys. We find that the percentage of voters who prefer divided government is smaller than previous studies suggest. Voters who prefer divided government according to the new measures are significantly more likely than other voters to vote in ways that create divided government in both presidential year and midterm congressional elections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale?”

  2. Incumbency is a set of dummy variables. A Republican delegation has Republican incumbents for House and Senate, a Democratic delegation has Democratic incumbents for House and Senate, and a divided delegation is one Republican incumbent and one Democratic incumbent. The baseline is all other cases: an open seat for one office or open seats for both offices.

References

  • Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. W. (1992). Sophisticated voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. The Journal of Politics, 56(3), 671–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Schousen, M. M. (1993). Policy moderation or conflicting expectations: Testing the intentional models of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly, 21(4), 410–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, P. A., Baum, L., Clausen, A. R., & Smith, C. E, Jr. (1992). Patterns and sources of ticket splitting in subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review, 86(4), 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. A. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–1996. American Political Science Review, 93(03), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Born, R. (1994). Split-ticket voters, divided government, and Fiorina’s policy-balancing model. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(1), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (1984). Voter choice: Evaluating political alternatives. American Behavioral Scientist, 28(2), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1997). Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 533–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (2002). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Calcagno, P. T., & Lopez, E. J. (2012). Divided we vote. Public Choice, 151(3–4), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2004). Policy balancing and preferences for party control of government. Political Research Quarterly, 57(4), 541–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. J. (1999). Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 93(04), 821–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N. T. (2015). The role of indifference in split-ticket voting. Political Behavior, 37(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N. T., & Mason, L. (2016). Sorting and the split-ticket: Evidence from presidential and subpresidential elections. Political Behavior, 38(2), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1996). Divided government and the design of administrative procedures: A formal model and empirical test. The Journal of Politics, 58(02), 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1988). The reagan years: Turning toward the right or groping toward the middle. In A. Kornberg & W. Mishler (Eds.), The resurgence of conservatism in Anglo-American Democracies (pp. 430–459). Durham, NC: Duke Unviersity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1992). Divided government. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer, J. G., Carter, A., McHenry, J., Teten, R., & Hoef, J. (2004). Experimenting with the balancing hypothesis. Political Psychology, 25(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B., Koetzie, W., McDonald, M. P., & Brunell, T. L. (2000). A new look at split-ticket outcomes for house and president: The comparative midpoints model. The Journal of Politics, 62(1), 34–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The electoral origins of divided government: Competition in US house elections, 1946–1988. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kselman, D., & Niou, E. M. S. (2010). Strategic voting in plurality elections. Political Analysis, 18(2), 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, D. (1997). Back from intermission: The 1994 elections and the return to divided government. In S. C. Patterson & H. F. Weisberg (Eds.), Great theater: The American Congress in Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, D., & Paolino, P. (1998). Downsian voting and the separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1180–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M., & Nadeau, R. (2004). Split-ticket voting: The effects of cognitive madisonianism. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1991). Divided we govern. New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mebane, W. R, Jr. (2000). Coordination, moderation, and institutional balancing in American presidential and house elections. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, K. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32(3), 505–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipan, C. R., & Shannon, M. L. (2003). Delaying justice (s): A duration analysis of Supreme Court confirmations. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 654–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., Wahlbeck, P. R., & Buell, E. H. (1997). Vote choice and the preference for divided government: Lessons of 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 879–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. E., Brown, R. D., Bruce, J. M., & Marvin Overby, L. (1999). Party balancing and voting for congress in the 1996 national election. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 737–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackee, J. W., & Yackee, S. W. (2009). Divided government and US federal rulemaking. Regulation & Governance, 3(2), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, Dartmouth College, HB 6108, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Dean Lacy

  2. Department of Political Science, Duke University, 273 Gross Hall, Campus Box 90204, Durham, NC, 27708-0204, USA

    Emerson M. S. Niou

  3. Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, 125 Wooten Hall, Denton, TX, 76203-5340, USA

    Philip Paolino

  4. University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 5807 S Woodlawn Ave, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Robert A. Rein

Authors
  1. Dean Lacy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emerson M. S. Niou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip Paolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert A. Rein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean Lacy.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 56 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacy, D., Niou, E.M.S., Paolino, P. et al. Measuring Preferences for Divided Government: Some Americans Want Divided Government and Vote to Create It. Polit Behav 41, 79–103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9442-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9442-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation