This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by BORN, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Policy-balancing Models and the Split-ticket Voter, 1972-1996

Vassar College

Previous examinations of the policy-balancing explanation for presidential-House split-ticket voting have been unable to sustain two of its basic propositions—that splitting should be greater for respondents located between the parties' ideological positions and for those seeing more interparty distance—when each is tested separately. Work by Garand and Lichtl, however, suggests that the between-parties expectation can be supported when both propositions are tested in the same equation. Our study demonstrates the essentially artifactual nature of this result, produced by the strong relationship of the between-parties variable to relative party closeness, with interparty distance held constant. But 1996 stands out as the one year in which clear-cut balancing behavior was manifested by the electorate. Furthermore, some backing for a modified version of the policy-balancing idea emerges when we take into account respondent perceptions of individual candidates' ideological positions.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. L. Saunders, A. I. Abramowitz, and J. Williamson A New Kind of Balancing Act: Electoral Certainty and Ticket-Splitting in the 1996 and 2000 Elections Political Research Quarterly, March 1, 2005; 58(1): 69 - 78. [Abstract] [PDF]