Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T01:03:49.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-Party Constituency Differences and Congressional Voting Behavior: A Partial Dissent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Clarence N. Stone
Clarence N. Stone*
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1963 , pp. 665 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This Review, Vol. 57 (March 1963), pp. 57–61.

2 Ibid., p. 57.

3 By way of further illustration, the foundering of the 1961 aid-to-education bill on the rock of irreconcilable interests in the House of Representatives bears witness of a non-quantitative sort to the importance of constituency characteristics. See Price, Hugh Douglas, “Race, Religion, and the Rules Committee: The Kennedy Aid-to-Education Bills,” in Westin, Alan F., ed., The Uses of Power (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962)Google Scholar.

4 The only redistricting involved two Washington districts. Information on redistricting and election outcomes was secured from Scammon, Richard M., America Voles, 4 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

5 Thirty-three districts were used in the analysis. Excluded were two districts, the Fourth of Iowa and the Third of Washington, in which the incumbents in the Eighty-sixth Congress did not serve full terms, and North Dakota because two Representatives were elected at large.

6 Cf. Samuel P. Huntington, “A Revised Theory of American Party Politics,” this Review, Vol. 44 (September 1950), pp. 669–677.

7 Op. cit., p. 60.

8 In the Northeastern (New England plus New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) “swing” districts of 1958–60 the average difference between Democrats and Republicans was only 54.9 per cent compared to a difference of well over 70 per cent in each of the other regions. The smaller difference in the Northeast is due to higher Republican scores, which averaged 37.7 per cent. The same regional pattern emerges if all Republican Representatives are compared or if Republican Senators are compared.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.