1979
DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674429147
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Changing American Voter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
259
1
15

Year Published

1985
1985
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 592 publications
(279 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
259
1
15
Order By: Relevance
“…Newly enfranchised individuals are known to be particularly open to recruitment by new parties and to be largely responsible for such changes as occur in the support for existing parties (Campbell et al, 1960;Butler and Stokes 1974;Nie et al, 1976;Inglehart, 1977Inglehart, , 1990Inglehart, , 1997Rose and McAllister, 1990;Franklin et al, 1992;Franklin and Ladner, 1995;Miller and Shanks, 1996). The same importance of newly enfranchised individuals has been found in regard to turnout Shanks, 1996, Lyons andAlexander, 2000;Putnam, 2000Putnam, , 2002Blais et al, 2001;Franklin and Wessels, 2002;Franklin, 2003;Blais et al, 2004): change in turnout most often comes from a new cohort of voters turning out at a rate that is different from the turnout rate among the previous cohort when they were new.…”
Section: What Causes Generational Effects On Turnout?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Newly enfranchised individuals are known to be particularly open to recruitment by new parties and to be largely responsible for such changes as occur in the support for existing parties (Campbell et al, 1960;Butler and Stokes 1974;Nie et al, 1976;Inglehart, 1977Inglehart, , 1990Inglehart, , 1997Rose and McAllister, 1990;Franklin et al, 1992;Franklin and Ladner, 1995;Miller and Shanks, 1996). The same importance of newly enfranchised individuals has been found in regard to turnout Shanks, 1996, Lyons andAlexander, 2000;Putnam, 2000Putnam, , 2002Blais et al, 2001;Franklin and Wessels, 2002;Franklin, 2003;Blais et al, 2004): change in turnout most often comes from a new cohort of voters turning out at a rate that is different from the turnout rate among the previous cohort when they were new.…”
Section: What Causes Generational Effects On Turnout?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Turning to the individual candidates, it is clear that although Nie, Verba, and Petrocik (1976) failed to separate policy from performance, they were nevertheless correct in arguing that policy alternatives have become more prevalent in candidate evaluations since 1964. In all the possible comparisons candidates from the 1952-1960 period rank lowest in percentage of policy-related comments.…”
Section: An Alternative Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tarrance, 1972;Graber, 1980;O'Keefe, 1975;Pomper, 1975;Shapiro, 1969 Repass (1971), Axelrod (1972), Boyd (1972), Page and Brody (1972), Pomper (1975), Miller and Levitan (1976), Nie, Verba and Petrocik (1976), and others report substantial changes in the electorate in the direction of greater issue consciousness. Pomper and Lederman (1980) synthesized electoral studies over the past two decades, finding that the issue coherence of the average voter has risen dramatically.…”
Section: Attack Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…McGuire (1962) and Pryor and Steinfatt (1978) It is true that recent studies document a general weakening of party identification during the last two decades (Axelrod, 1972(Axelrod, , 1974(Axelrod, , 1978(Axelrod, , 1982(Axelrod, , 1986Boyd, 1972;Brody & Page, 1972;Goldberg, 1966;Miller & Levitan, 1976;Nie, Verba & Petrocik, 1976;Petrocik, 1980;Pomper, 1972aPomper, , 1972bPomper, , 1975Pomper & Lederman, 1980;Repass, 1971;Shapiro, 1969;Stanley, Bianco & Niemi, 1986;Weisberg & Rusk, 1970). This weakening of party identification has swelled the nonaffiliated ranks (a combination of politically apathetic and independent) to more than one-third of the electorate (Public Opinion, 1984, p. 21) and increased the extent of crossover voting (Republican identifiers who vote for Democratic candidates and vice-versa) to more than one-seventh of the electorate (Mann & Wolfinger, 1984, p. 273).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%