2004
DOI: 10.3162/036298004x201294
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Congressional Party Defection in American History

Abstract: In this paper, we analyze the roll‐call voting behavior of House and Senate members who changed party affiliation during the course of their political careers. We analyze members who switched during the stable periods of the three major two‐party systems in American history: the Federalist‐Jeffersonian Republican system (3d to 12th Congresses), the Democratic‐Whig System (20th to 30th Congresses), and the Democratic‐Republican System (46th to 106th Congresses). Our primary findings are that the biggest changes… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
50
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 155 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
50
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…question: When we observe legislators choosing between organizations with different characteristics, we can identify directly the features of parties that are important for political goals and careers. For this reason, there is a rich tradition of work on party switching within political science, with scholars leveraging party switching to understand politics in the United States (Grose 2004;Nokken 2000;Nokken and Poole 2004), Latin America (Desposato 2006;Mejia Acosta 2004;Schmitt 1999), Europe (Heller and Mershon 2005;McElroy 2003;Shabad and Slomczynski 2004;Thames 2007;Turan 1985), and Asia (Cox and Rosenbluth 1995;Kato 1998;Reed and Scheiner 2003). Party switching can be of several types, including to new or old parties (Shabad and Slomczynski 2004), and fluidity of membership can be an ongoing phenomenon or just an infrequent realignment occurrence.…”
Section: Our Approach: Using Party Switching To Study Party Affiliationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…question: When we observe legislators choosing between organizations with different characteristics, we can identify directly the features of parties that are important for political goals and careers. For this reason, there is a rich tradition of work on party switching within political science, with scholars leveraging party switching to understand politics in the United States (Grose 2004;Nokken 2000;Nokken and Poole 2004), Latin America (Desposato 2006;Mejia Acosta 2004;Schmitt 1999), Europe (Heller and Mershon 2005;McElroy 2003;Shabad and Slomczynski 2004;Thames 2007;Turan 1985), and Asia (Cox and Rosenbluth 1995;Kato 1998;Reed and Scheiner 2003). Party switching can be of several types, including to new or old parties (Shabad and Slomczynski 2004), and fluidity of membership can be an ongoing phenomenon or just an infrequent realignment occurrence.…”
Section: Our Approach: Using Party Switching To Study Party Affiliationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Using various approaches to estimating preferences, Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers (2004), Nokken and Poole (2004), and Poole and Rosenthal's NOMINATE data all indicate that Jeffords's voting became distinctly more liberal after he switched. Nonetheless, there are multiple reasons to believe that a significant change in Jeffords's preference does not explain our results.…”
Section: Could a Change In Jeffords's Preferences Explain Our Results?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These roll call experiments have been used extensively in the literature to test for effects on first dimension W-NOMINATE scores from events such as party switching, redistricting, and last-period effects (Nokken and Poole 2004;Goodman 2004). The wnominate package simplifies this procedure into two important ways.…”
Section: Natural Experiments With W-nominatementioning
confidence: 99%