In the United States of America elections for the Congress and the Presidency coincide every four years. Traditionally the party which was successful in the presidential elections would also be successful to some degree in the congressional elections. In recent decades however a phenomenon has taken hold called Split-Ticketing in which voters elect one party for the presidency and another party for the Congress. This is in contrast to straight ticketing where voters vote for the same party in both elections. Increase in split ticketing has led to a ‘Divided Government’ in which one party controls the Congress and another party controls the executive branch.
Political scientists have put forth various reasons for split ticket behavior by the electorate however there is no consensus on its exact reason. One can argue that it is due to non partisan voting basically meaning that voters are electing the candidates based on their personalities and their policies towards various issues rather than voting for a specific party. This is seen as a symptom of a decline in partisan attachment by the American public (Wattenberg 1998; King 1997). This theory holds especially well with regards to elections which are overshadowed by an important issue. Another reason which can be added is the fact that many voters expect different things from the legislative branch and the executive branch. For example while Americans might hold the president the primary person responsible for the security of the nation they might see the Congress as the primary source responsible for initiating laws in regards to abortion and gun control. This translates into different voting approaches in elections appointing state representatives to the congress compared to presidential elections which elects the national leader (Jacobson 1990).
Another major cause cited by scientists is an intentional act of ‘Balancing’. In this regard voters elect two different parties to the Congress and White House so that the two parties balance each other out and a more even and centrist approach is taken in the governing of the country (Erikson 1988; Fiorina 1996; Mebane 2000). According to this theory split ticket voters believe in a more even handed approach to issues concerning the country and believe that they can achieve this with a balanced government. This view however is challenged by other scientists like Jacobson who believes that even if split ticketing results in a balance government it was not achieved with the purposeful intention of the voters.
There are also voters that do not agree with a single party on major issues. Since there are only two main parties in the United States, many voters cannot identify their political, economical and social views with a single party. Dr Edward G. Carmines and Dr Michael J. Ensley of Indiana University after thorough research are the primary individuals behind this theory which explains split ticketing especially in the past decade. According to this claim voters with heterodox policy preferences are much more likely to split ticket. They claim that certain categories of society fit this definition, first are the populists who have liberal views with regards to political and economic issues which match with the policies of the Democratic Party but conservative views on social and cultural issues which match with the policies of the Republican Party. Second are the libertarians who have a liberal position on cultural issues while having a conservative position on economic and social welfare issues. Thus they are drawn to the Democratic Party on cultural issues and to the Republican Party on economic issues. The third group are individuals with a moderate and centrist position on issues. Thus they are drawn to one party on certain issues and to another on other issues. These categories of voters are the main bulk of the electorate with split tickets in the past decade. For example in the 2004 elections the probability that a libertarian would cast a split ticket is 32 percent and the probabilities for the populist and moderate voters are 25 percent and 31 percent, respectively. However, the comparable probabilities for the liberal and conservative are only 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively (Carmines and Ensley 2004).
In conclusion it can be stated that there are several main theories behind the causes of split ticket voting in the United States, the main of which were stated above. It should be noted however that there is no consensus among scientist as to which theory is more correct in describing the root cause of this behavior. It seems that split ticket voting is due in part to all of the stated factors in this article. Depending on the time period and background of a specific election the importance of each causal factor is different, thus where as ‘Intentional Balancing’ can be prescribed as the predominant reason behind split ticket voting in the 80s and early 90s, research has shown that ‘Heterodox Policy Preferences’ by voters which was coined by Carmines and Ensley of Indiana University has played a more substantial role in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
References:
Carmines, Edward G., Michael J. Ensley. 2004. “Policy Preferences, Party Ideologies and
Split- Ticket Voting in the United States”, American Political Science Association.
Erikson, Robert C. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss.” Journal of Politics 50(4): 1011-1029.
Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government. (2nd Edition) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jacobson, Gary. 1990. The Electoral Origin of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
King, David C. 1997. “The Polarization of American Parties and the Mistrust of Government,” in Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King (Eds.), Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2000. “Coordination, Moderation, and Institutional Balancing in American Presidential and House Elections.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 37-57.
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Political scientists have put forth various reasons for split ticket behavior by the electorate however there is no consensus on its exact reason. One can argue that it is due to non partisan voting basically meaning that voters are electing the candidates based on their personalities and their policies towards various issues rather than voting for a specific party. This is seen as a symptom of a decline in partisan attachment by the American public (Wattenberg 1998; King 1997). This theory holds especially well with regards to elections which are overshadowed by an important issue. Another reason which can be added is the fact that many voters expect different things from the legislative branch and the executive branch. For example while Americans might hold the president the primary person responsible for the security of the nation they might see the Congress as the primary source responsible for initiating laws in regards to abortion and gun control. This translates into different voting approaches in elections appointing state representatives to the congress compared to presidential elections which elects the national leader (Jacobson 1990).
Another major cause cited by scientists is an intentional act of ‘Balancing’. In this regard voters elect two different parties to the Congress and White House so that the two parties balance each other out and a more even and centrist approach is taken in the governing of the country (Erikson 1988; Fiorina 1996; Mebane 2000). According to this theory split ticket voters believe in a more even handed approach to issues concerning the country and believe that they can achieve this with a balanced government. This view however is challenged by other scientists like Jacobson who believes that even if split ticketing results in a balance government it was not achieved with the purposeful intention of the voters.
There are also voters that do not agree with a single party on major issues. Since there are only two main parties in the United States, many voters cannot identify their political, economical and social views with a single party. Dr Edward G. Carmines and Dr Michael J. Ensley of Indiana University after thorough research are the primary individuals behind this theory which explains split ticketing especially in the past decade. According to this claim voters with heterodox policy preferences are much more likely to split ticket. They claim that certain categories of society fit this definition, first are the populists who have liberal views with regards to political and economic issues which match with the policies of the Democratic Party but conservative views on social and cultural issues which match with the policies of the Republican Party. Second are the libertarians who have a liberal position on cultural issues while having a conservative position on economic and social welfare issues. Thus they are drawn to the Democratic Party on cultural issues and to the Republican Party on economic issues. The third group are individuals with a moderate and centrist position on issues. Thus they are drawn to one party on certain issues and to another on other issues. These categories of voters are the main bulk of the electorate with split tickets in the past decade. For example in the 2004 elections the probability that a libertarian would cast a split ticket is 32 percent and the probabilities for the populist and moderate voters are 25 percent and 31 percent, respectively. However, the comparable probabilities for the liberal and conservative are only 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively (Carmines and Ensley 2004).In conclusion it can be stated that there are several main theories behind the causes of split ticket voting in the United States, the main of which were stated above. It should be noted however that there is no consensus among scientist as to which theory is more correct in describing the root cause of this behavior. It seems that split ticket voting is due in part to all of the stated factors in this article. Depending on the time period and background of a specific election the importance of each causal factor is different, thus where as ‘Intentional Balancing’ can be prescribed as the predominant reason behind split ticket voting in the 80s and early 90s, research has shown that ‘Heterodox Policy Preferences’ by voters which was coined by Carmines and Ensley of Indiana University has played a more substantial role in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
References:
Carmines, Edward G., Michael J. Ensley. 2004. “Policy Preferences, Party Ideologies and
Split- Ticket Voting in the United States”, American Political Science Association.
Erikson, Robert C. 1988. “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss.” Journal of Politics 50(4): 1011-1029.
Fiorina, Morris. 1996. Divided Government. (2nd Edition) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jacobson, Gary. 1990. The Electoral Origin of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
King, David C. 1997. “The Polarization of American Parties and the Mistrust of Government,” in Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King (Eds.), Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2000. “Coordination, Moderation, and Institutional Balancing in American Presidential and House Elections.” American Political Science Review 94(1): 37-57.
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1 comment:
Very long blog with lots of text.Maybe you should add more images for effect.Stop by my blog and take a look.
Post a Comment