¹ See Schattschneider, Elmer E., The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), chap. 5Google Scholar. Stokes, Donald, “Parties and the Nationalization of Electoral Forces,” in The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, ed. Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter D. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 182–202 uses the term more nearly as it is meant hereGoogle Scholar.

² See Converse, Philip, “The Concept of a Normal Vote,” in Elections and the Political Order by Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald (New York: John Wiley, 1966), pp. 9–39 Google Scholar. For the purposes of the analysis reported here, the “normal Republican vote” has been defined to be the mean Republican share of the two party vote over the entire decade of the 1950s.

³ Stokes, “Parties and the Nationalization of Electoral Forces.” See also Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1969), pp. 66–75 Google Scholar.

⁴ David Kovenock, Philip Beardsley, and James Prothro, “States, Party, Ideology, Issues, and Candidate Choice: A Preliminary, Theory-Relevant Analysis of the 1968 American Presidential Election,” a paper prepared for the 8th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Munich, September, 1970, p. 13. For a demonstration that “party image” and party identification can have independent effects, see Matthews, Donald and Prothro, James, “The Concept of Party Image and Its Importance for the Southern Electorate,” in The Electoral Process, ed. Jennings, M. Kent and Zeigler, Harmon (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 139–174 Google Scholar.

⁵ Stokes, Donald, “A Variance Components Model of Political Effects,” in Mathematical Applications in Political Science, ed. Claunch, John M. (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1965), pp. 61–85 Google Scholar. An elementary discussion of analysis of variance may be found in Hays, William, Statistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), chaps. 12 and 13Google Scholar. A more technical treatment of variance components analysis may be found in Searle, Shayle R., Linear Models (New York: John Wiley, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁶ Butler and Stokes, pp. 135–150; Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William, Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), especially chap. 5Google Scholar; Katz, D. and Eldersveld, S., “The Impact of Local Party Activity Upon the Electorate,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring, 1961), 1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ The definition should actually be somewhat broader, since it is my intention to include those things which are caused by national factors, even if they do not themselves affect all voters.

⁸ See Searle; Johnston, John, Econometric Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp. 258–260 Google Scholar.

⁹ Miller, Warren and Stokes, Donald, “Constituency Influence in Congress,” in Campbell, et al., p. 368 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Converse, Philip, “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (Winter, 1962), 578–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel, The People's Choice, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Berelson et al., pp. 109–17.

¹² This line of reasoning suggests, incidentally, that aggregate analysis of this type might be preferable to survey analysis even if the individual level data were available. Since much of the causation dealt with is postulated to be indirect, it is unlikely that individuals would give “accurate” responses if asked whether they give most weight to national, state, or district issues. Further, since the Congressman must deal with his constituency as a whole, in considering congressional behavior aggregate measures may be more appropriate. To be strictly correct, what we are measuring is the degree to which a constituency behaves as if each voter weighted each level of causation in a given way, and not the degree to which this is actually the case.

¹³ Stokes, , “A Variance Components Model of Political Effects,” p. 76 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The definition of competitiveness used here is derived from Cox, Edward, “Measurement of Party Strength,” Wesern Political Quarterly, 13 (December, 1960), 1022–42Google Scholar. The mean and standard deviation of the Republican percentage of the two party vote over the decade were computed. A district was defined to be a “marginal Republican” district if the mean Republican percentage was between 50 per cent and 50 per cent plus one standard deviation, a “moderate Republican” district if the mean was between 50 per cent plus one standard deviation and 50 per cent plus two standard deviations, and a “safe Republican district if the mean was greater than 50 per cent plus two standard deviations. The Democratic districts were likewise classified. This measure has the virtue of taking into account the volatility of the vote as well as its mean. In a “marginal” district, we would estimate the probability of the dominant party's winning an election to be between .5 and .8, in a “moderate” district we would estimate this probability to be between .8 and .97 and in a “safe” district to be greater than .98.

¹⁵ For evidence that turnout is related to perceived closeness of the election, see Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley, 1964), p. 54 Google Scholar; for data suggesting that turnout is related to competitiveness in primary elections see Key, V. O. Jr., Southern Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949), p. 506 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cummings, Milton Jr., Congressmen and the Electorate: Elections for the U. S. House and the President, 1920–1964 (New York: Free Press, 1966), pp. 172–97Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Campbell, et al., The American Voter, pp. 148–49Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Regional definitions are from Galli, Giorgio and Prandi, Alfonso, Patterns of Political Participation in Italy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), p. 332 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting this possibility.