Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-tr9hg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-21T15:04:52.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scholarly Recount: A Useful Addition to the Methods of Voting Research … With An Example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Henry Bain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Elections are the ultimate mode of reducing each of us to a bean and counting us” (Verba 1993, 684).

Things are not really that bad. On election day the voter, marking the typical American long ballot, makes a pronouncement more complex and nuanced than a single tally. We can learn much about voting behavior by paying attention to the full message that each voter sends us.

This can be done by conducting a “scholarly recount”: sorting the ballots into groups representing the possible combinations of choices (Democratic for Congress, Republican for governor, Democratic for state senator, etc.) and counting them. The relative sizes of the groups can not only give us a precise answer to the often-asked question about the magnitude of ticket splitting, but also answer the more general and more important question: How do the voters distribute themselves among all possible combinations of candidate choices—two straight tickets and a great many mixed ones? The analyst may also find, in the composition of the candidate combinations attracting the largest numbers of voters, some clues as to the candidate characteristics and voter attitudes that are exerting the greatest influence on the ballot markings.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 495 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1996

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

Abramson, Paul R. 1987. “Measuring the Southern Contribution to the Democratic Coalition.” American Political Science Review 81:567–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Schousen, Matthew M. 1993. “Policy Moderation or Conflicting Expectations: Testing the Intentional Models of Split-Ticket Voting.” American Politics Quarterly 21:410–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herb. 1995. “The Perot Campaign.” In Democracy's Feast, ed. Weisberg, Herbert F., Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Aspin, Larry T., and Hall, William K. 1994. “Retention Elections and Judicial Behavior.” Judicature 77:306–15.Google Scholar
Bain, Henry M. Jr., and Hecock, Donald S. 1957. Ballot Position and Voter's Choice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1993. Congressional Quarterly Almanac. Washington.Google Scholar
Cowart, Andrew T. 1974. “A Cautionary Note on Aggregate Indicators of Split Ticket Voting.” Political Methodology 1:109–30.Google Scholar
Cummings, Milton C. Jr. 1966. Congressmen and the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Donsanto, Craig R. 1994. “Retention of Voting Records Under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1974.” Appendix 2 in Garber, Marie, Election Document Retention in an Age of High Technology. Washington: Federal Election Commission, National Clearinghouse on Election Administration.Google Scholar
Dubois, Philip L. 1980. From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Election Data Service. 1995. Datasheet on usage of voting systems; Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Feigert, Frank B. 1979. “Illusions of Ticket Splitting.” American Politics Quarterly 7:470–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitelson, Alan R. 1978. “An Analysis of Split-Ticket Voting Patterns at the Microanalytic Level.” Political Methodology 5:445–59.Google Scholar
Gitelson, Alan R., and Richard, Patricia Bayer. 1983. “Ticket Splitting: Aggregate Measures vs. Actual Ballots.” Western Political Quarterly 36:410–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J.P., and Frachter, Benjamin. 1973. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hall, William K., and Aspin, Larry T. 1987. “What Twenty Years of Retention Elections Have Told Us.” Judicature 70:340–47.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. “Congress: A Singular Continuity.” In The Elections of 1988, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. 1956. American State Politics: An Introduction. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Lovrich, Nicholas P. Jr., and Sheldon, Charles H. 1983. “Voters in Contested, Nonpartisan Judicial Elections: A Responsible Electorate or a Problematic Public?” Western Political Quarterly 36: 241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, Wilson Carey. 1993. “The Meaning of the Election.” In The Election of 1992, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
“Milwaukee TV station Examines Individual Ballot Cards.” 1988. Election Administration Reports 18(17): 1–2.Google Scholar
Mueller, John E. 1969. “Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and Historical Trends in California.” American Political Science Review 63:1197–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. 1995. Dataset, votes cast for president and house of representatives, 1984–92.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 1993. “The Presidential Election.” In The Election of 1992, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney. 1993. “The Voice of the People.” James Madison Award Lecture. PS: Political Science & Politics 26:677–86.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1994. The Decline of American Political Parties 1952–1992. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar