The Neglected World of State Politics

Jewell, Malcolm E.

doi:10.2307/2130511

Cited by 57 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, in the spirit of the challenge offered by Jewell (1982) and the analyses of interparty competition by Tucker (1982) and Kenney and Rice (1985), the goal is to heighten our understanding of the measure's theoretical and empirical underpinnings and, in turn, to obtain a better understanding of state political systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interparty Competition in the American States: an Examination of Index Components

King

1989

Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EW aspects of political activities in the American states have attracted m~ the attention as has the level of competition between the Democratic and Republican parties. In the wake of V. O. Key's (1949 and 1956) classic works in the field of state party systems and elections, numerous scholars have proposed measures of interparty competition (e.g., ) while others have sought to determine the policy consequences of such competition (e.g., ). In comparison, much less effort has been devoted to the question of why the party systems in some states are more competitive than those in others; studies investigating the determinants of party systems generally point to the link between interparty competition and socioeconomic factors. Several recent studies have focused on changes in the nature and effects of interparty competition over time (Tucker 1982;Feigert 1985;Kenney and Rice 1985; Tucker and Herzik 1986).Absent from these studies, however, is a separate consideration of the various dimensions of an index of interparty competition. This paper explores this aspect of interparty competition by examining relationships among the components of the commonly used Ranney index. Interparty competition in the chambers of state legislatures and for the governorship are analyzed in an effort to enhance our understanding of state party systems. MEASURING INTERPARTY COMPETITIONThe literature on American state politics is replete with measures of interparty competition. With an occasional exception, these measures are based on the percentage of elections won by parties, the frequency of turnover in party control of offices, the percent of votes or legislative seats won, or a combination of the above. Some studies include contests for both national and state offices while others restrict themselves to elections at one level or the other. Each basis for an interparty competition index has its strengths and weaknesses (Pfeiffer 1967: 457-62; Zody and Luttbeg 1968).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interparty Competition in the American States: an Examination of Index Components

King

1989

Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several earlier efforts, although short-lived, proved fruitful (at least for academics and media organizations), and many interviewees volunteered that their greatest interest lay in the comparison of their own state's attitudes with those of their neighbors. The coordinators of such collaborations might elicit initial participation by selecting a perpetually "hot" policy topic, outlining a specific scholarly product, and perhaps most importantly, proposing to leverage the first collaboration into a major funding proposal of benefit to all (see also Jewell 1982;Wright, Erikson, and McIver 1985). By anticipating the motivations and limitations of each type of potential participant, an enterprising individual or group could shrink the resource and reward challenges before tackling logistical issues such as timing and question wording.…”

Section: Methods: Polling the Pollstersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, improved dataarchiving together with regional polling projects on hot-button topics would serve to diminish such challenges. scholars of U.S. state politics have been in the data-scrounging business for decades (Jewell 1982). While basic demographic measures (e.g., annual income, educational attainment, employment rates, etc.)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of State Polls: Old Challenges, New Opportunities

Parry

Kisida

Langley

2008

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prospect of a full complement of regularly-conducted, publicly-released statelevel polls has both excited and eluded scholars of state politics and public opinion for decades. Here, we examine the current status of state-level polling in the U.S. Specifically, we rely on interviews with 51 state poll directors to investigate the location, frequency, scope, budget, purpose, content, and perceived policy impact of such projects. We also explore the still challenging prospect of greater state-to-state collaboration. We conclude that while current state polling is a robust industry, calls for greater collaboration remain unheeded largely because of limited resources and the incompatible reward structures of project directors. Still, improved dataarchiving together with regional polling projects on hot-button topics would serve to diminish such challenges. scholars of U.S. state politics have been in the data-scrounging business for decades (Jewell 1982). While basic demographic measures (e.g., annual income, educational attainment, employment rates, etc.) are widely available at the state, county, and city level, political information taken for granted at the national level (e.g., legislative roll-call votes, revenue and expenditure ledgers, campaign contributions, etc.) remained unrecorded and/or ill-organized in all but the most professionalized state capitals through the 1990s. Even now, projects requiring state-level records created prior to the spread of electronic data storage are daunting (see Brace and Jewett 1995; and, for example, Wright and Clark 2005). Public opinion data of the subnational sort have proved particularly elusive. Certainly the technological at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015 spa.sagepub.com Downloaded from

show abstract

“…Jewell (1982) rightly points out that state politics is in general an understudied arena of politics. Moreover, he asserts we need to ascertain whether voting behavior is the same at the state level as it is at the national level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Incumbency Across Institutions: A Look at the House, Senate, and Governorships

Lockerbie¹

2005

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the American National Election Studies of 1990, 1994, and 1998, we can see that there is an incumbency advantage for governors, senators, and members of the House of Representatives. There is, however, some variability to the magnitude of the incumbency advantage. Moreover, it appears to follow a rather sensible pattern. It appears to be strongest for members of the House and weakest for Governors. When looking at House elections, we can see that incumbency is more powerful than is party identification. When we look at senatorial and gubernatorial elections, the items appear to be more evenly matched. When we look at evaluations of the national parties performance and expectations of performance, the picture becomes much more muddy. Gubernatorial candidates consistently avoid being held accountable for their national parties past economic performance. Candidates for the House and Senate are largely able to avoid responsibility for the past economic performance of their national parties. Economic expectations, however, are modestly more related to vote choice.

show abstract

The Neglected World of State Politics

Cited by 57 publications

References 0 publications

Interparty Competition in the American States: an Examination of Index Components

Interparty Competition in the American States: an Examination of Index Components

The State of State Polls: Old Challenges, New Opportunities

A Comparison of Incumbency Across Institutions: A Look at the House, Senate, and Governorships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About