Mayhew- Final Exam Flashcards
Some elections are realigning and others are not
The attempt to dichotomize elections between critical and non-critical ones is flawed. Rather than thinking about partisan change in terms of peaks followed by long periods of stasis, we should think about change as a mixture of large, medium, and small effects. In other words, a gradual change model is better than a punctuated equilibrium model.
Concern and turnout are higher at realigning elections
Seems modestly accurate for 1860 and 1896, but not 1932.
Periodicity
The “30-year pattern” seems very dubious. If the critical/non-critical dichotomy is invalid, then so is the periodicity hypothesis.
Ideological polarization is associated with realignment
No, the realigning elections (1860, 1896, 1932) don’t all seem to be accompanied by ideological polarization, particularly 1932.
Tension and flash points model
The realignment model of a gradual build-up of tension that then triggers a major shift at a critical election is flawed. The realignment model looks too far back in history to explain shifts in party ID, which can often be better explained by proximate events.
Realigning elections are national; non-realigning ones are local
Empirically, this doesn’t seem to be so clear.
The emergence of a new cleavage causes a realignment
Not necessarily; events may do a better job of explaining changes in voter attachments.
Realignment leads to major policy changes:
Seems to be true for 1860s and 1930s, but not the 1890s.
Realignments are about redistribution
Seems to be true of 1860s and 1930s, but not the 1890s.
Major contributions to the political system are made about once a generation
No, political parties respond to changing preferences on an on-going basis.
The 1896 election ushered in an era of business dominance:
Probably not. Business was already doing fine before 1896 and appears not to have needed insulation
How does he think we should view the realignment process
as a gradual process, not a punctuated equilibrium/tipping point model
Short term variables vs long term variables
short term variables like recession or war may do a better job of explaining partisan change than long term variables like ideology change
What does he say about political issues
argues than many are valence issues. when we factor them in the realignment paradigm looks less useful, based as it is on divisions over policy positions.
