¹ Key, V. O., “A Theory of Critical Elections,” Journal of Politics, 17 (02, 1955), 3–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Burnham, Walter Dean, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Electoral Politics (New York: Norton, 1970), p. 10 Google Scholar. Also, Burnham, Walter Dean, “Party Systems and the Political Process,” in The American Party Systems, ed. Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter Dean (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 289 Google Scholar.

² Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960)Google Scholar.

³ We are aware that few voters read platforms. Platforms are employed as indicators of the general preelection positions of the two parties. Although some historical problems are raised. Democratic and Whig platforms were compared in 1844, 1848 and 1852. Source of party platforms: National Party Platforms, ed. Porter, Kirk H. and Johnson, Donald B. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966), and 1968 supplementGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Ginsberg, Benjamin, “Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844 to 1968,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, No. 4 (11, 1972), 603–625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Every unit of difference in polarity is acted upon by a unit of difference in salience. We are, therefore, interested in the product of the two differences. Intensity and polarity cannot be summed in either a scalar or vector sense. The vector sum or Euclidean solution might be appropriate if the two independent variables were comparably mea-sured and addable. Not only is this not the case, but our assumption is that the effects on the dependent variable are the results of a multiplicative interaction. Whether this assumption is correct depends upon whether our results are consistent with the hypothetical results.

⁶ We assume that the magnitudes of differences in polarity are, in part, related to the total importance of the issue.

⁷ Signs indicate the polarity of the Democrats relative to the Republicans not the absolute polarity of the Democratic position.

⁸ This finding is very much in accord with Stokes's assertion that the period just prior to the Civil War was the era in American political history when political conflict was most nearly focused on a single issue dimension. Stokes, Donald E., “Spatial Models of Party Competition,” Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., Elections and the Political Order (New York: Wiley, 1966), p. 177 Google Scholar.

⁹ It is interesting to note that 1912 and 1964, years often associated with substantial amounts of partisan conflict and changes in voting behavior, rank fifth and sixth, respectively, in terms of the magnitude of the difference between the two parties. It is also interesting that the level of conflict between the two parties appears to have diminished considerably over time. Analysis of the causes and consequences of this diminution of conflict is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper.

¹⁰ Because of the temporal limitations of our data we can, of course, only make inferences about the 1798–1800 period. The 1874–80 period, in many respects, respresents an anomalous case. Voter realignment during this period primarily, but not exclusively, involves the return of the Southern Democratic vote. Party competition during this period includes the Conservative Republican and Southern Democratic alliance which led to Hayes's disputed election in 1876. Changes in Radical Republican policy, though of different types, were espoused by both parties during this period. In some respects, the election of 1880 represented the electorate's implicit ratification of the results of the elite compromise reached in 1876, i.e., to proceed with rapid industrial expansion while permitting the formal return of the South to national political participation. This compromise meant that the South would be an economically and, for a time, politically subordinate region but, would be autonomous in the area of race relations.

¹¹ United Stales Statutes at Large (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1789–1968), Vols. I to LXXXII Google Scholar.

¹² Ezekial, Mordecai and Fox, Karl A., Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1959), p. 343 Google Scholar.

¹³ Burnham, , Critical Elections, p. 13 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ We should note that minority party victory is, on the average, associated with greater than usual degrees of policy change:

Mean change following critical years: 2.52(. 124).

Mean change following other minority victories: 1.661.064).

Mean change, all other years: 1.32.

The mean degree of choice available to voters prior to both critical changes and other minority party victories is given in parenthesis. The number of cases is too small to permit the use of measures of association. The 1848 election is included as a minority victory although the Whigs captured only the presidency.

¹⁵ Leuchtenburg, William E., The Perils of Prosperity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958)Google Scholar, Lubell, Samuel, The Future of American Politics (Garden City: Doubleday, 1955)Google Scholar, and Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Age of Roosevelt (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1957), vol. I, remain excellent sourcesGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Two excellent sources are Chambers, William N., Political Parties in a New Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963)Google Scholar and Cunningham, Noble E., The Jeffersonian Republicans (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Among the best historical accounts are Freehling, William W., Prelude to Civil War (New York: Harper, 1966)Google Scholar and Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Cobben, Stanley, “Northeastern Business and Radical Reconstruction: A Reexamination,” in The Economic Impact of the American Civil War, ed. Andreano, Ralph (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1962), pp. 144–164 Google Scholar. Also Hartz, Louis, “Government-Business Relations,” in Economic Change in the Civil War Era, Proceedings of a Conference on American Economic Institutional Change, 1850–1873, ed. Gilchrist, David T. and Lewis, W. Donald (Greenville, Delaware: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation, 1965)Google Scholar.