Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-20T12:52:42.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Policy, Party Platforms, and Critical Elections: A Reexamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

W. Lawrence Neuman  and
Alexander Hicks
W. Lawrence Neuman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Alexander Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
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
Letter
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 277 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1977

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 Ginsberg, Benjamin, “Elections and Public Policy,” American Political Science Review, 70 (March 1976), 41–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Alford, Robert and Friedland, Roger, “Public Policy and Political Participation,” Annual Review of Sociology, 1 (1975), 429–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ginsberg, p. 1.

4 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley, 1970)Google Scholar.

5 Ginsberg, Benjamin, “Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844 to 1968,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (November 1972), 603–625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses each formula component.

6 The vast number of years which show no party differences for the issues of redistribution, labor, ruralism, and universalism presented in Table 2 may be the result of one party's failing to take a stand and not due to a real lack of platform difference between the parties.

7 It was found that t = 2.01, significant at the 0.05 level, with df = 56.

8 We found some minor differences by dividing the entire period into “before 1900” and “after 1900.” Ginsberg's earlier article (Ginsberg, “Critical Elections”) even argues for some periodization effects.

9 We owe this insight to an anonymous reviewer.

10 The correlation between critical election periods (coded 1) with party platform changes is 0.332 and with total policy changes is 0.387.

11 Ginsberg, , “Elections and Public Policy,” p. 48 Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.