Rednecks and Quiche Eaters: A Cartographic Analysis of Recent Third-Party Electoral Campaigns

Shelley, Fred M.; Archer, J. Clark; White, Ellen R.

doi:10.1080/00221348408980437

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With some exceptions, most research in electoral geography during the postwar period was by French scholars (Morazé, 1947;Siegfried, 1949), but the geography of voting perspective enjoyed a significant revival among Anglo-American geographers in the early 1980s with works emphasizing the persistence of regional cleavages in American elections (Archer, 1988;Archer, Murauskas, Shelley, White, & Taylor, 1985;Archer & Taylor, 1981;Martis, 1988;Shelley, Archer, & White, 1984). Indeed, Archer and Shelley (1986) co-authored a "Resource Publication" of the Association of American Geographers that declared, "the task of the political geographer is the identification and interpretation of the sectional manifestations of political issues."…”

Section: The Geography Of Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electoral geography: From mapping votes to representing power

Forest

2017

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In some ways, electoral geography has never been more popular. From the detailed, online maps of the Brexit vote to discussions of the electoral college versus the popular vote in the 2016 Trump–Clinton U.S. presidential contest, the relationships among geography, voting, and political power have seldom been more visible. The popularity of electoral geography in social and news media, however, does not necessarily reflect its presence in scholarly discussions, and indeed, in some ways, the former has replaced the latter. Digital technology and the burgeoning availability of electronic data mean that it is easier than ever to create maps of votes, often in near real time. Yet the academic field of electoral geography encompasses more than just mapping votes, including the study of election campaigns, political parties, electoral systems, and gerrymandering. The 3 major approaches are the geography of voting (mapping and visualizing votes), geographic influences on voting (the effect of place on political preferences and behavior), and the geography of representation (the analysis of electoral systems). Indeed, the structure of the electoral system, including gerrymandering, is often the key to understanding how political and racial/ethnic minorities can (or cannot) wield power and influence. This article examines each approach after a brief review of the historical origins of the subfield.

show abstract

Section: The Geography Of Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electoral geography: From mapping votes to representing power

Forest

2017

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Voting can be regarded as a form of preference-revealing behavior, and geographically disaggregated voting results are a rich source of inferences about underlying behavioral processes, as demonstrated in a number of recent political-geographic studies (e.g., Archer and Taylor, 1981;Shelley, et a!., 1984).…”

Section: Water Politics and Electroal Geographymentioning

confidence: 99%

VOTER REACTIONS TO THE 1976 WATER DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY REFERENDA IN TEXAS¹

Shelley

Schoolmaster

Roberts

1986

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1957, Texans have had the opportunity to vote on eight referenda concerning the allocation of state funds for water resources development and the maintenance of water quality. In 1976, a water development amendment and a water quality amendment were presented simultaneously to the voters of Texas, affording a unique opportunity for electoral‐geographic comparison of county‐level returns on the two issues. In this paper, cartographic and statistical analyses of the county‐level voting outcomes for each referendum are presented. In both cases, the referenda were supported by voters in water‐deficient West Texas, especially those counties dependent on irrigated crop production. In contrast, urban voters and East Texans tended to oppose both amendments. However, support for the water quality amendment in the urbanized areas of Dallas‐Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio enabled this amendment to pass statewide while its counterpart failed. The results highlight the importance of local differences in perceived water policy needs, and in doing so they illustrate that geographical anlaysis of returns from initiatives and referenda is a useful tool for understanding the locational conflicts underlying water resources and other policy efforts.

show abstract