Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-r4dm2 Total loading time: 0.436 Render date: 2021-09-21T18:55:10.608Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Balancing in the U.S. States, 1978–2009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Michael A. Bailey*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
Elliott B. Fullmer
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
*Corresponding
Michael A. Bailey, Department of Government & Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Intercultural Center 681, Washington, DC 20057, USA Email: baileyma@georgetown.edu

Abstract

Since the Civil War, the president's party has lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in all but three midterm election cycles. Many attribute this pattern to “balancing” by moderate voters who prefer a Democratic Congress when Republicans control the White House, and vice versa. Although a number of scholars have tested the balancing hypothesis, the debate remains unsettled. We argue that the U.S. states provide an excellent way to analyze the issue further. Similar to the national government, states feature an executive and (in most cases) a bicameral legislature whose members come up for election in both gubernatorial and state midterm years. If voters balance, one should observe such behavior in state elections when an executive's partisanship is known and a legislative choice is necessary. We examine state legislative elections from 1978 to 2009 and find evidence consistent with the balancing hypothesis.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011

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

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1985. “Economic Conditions, Presidential Popularity, and Voting Behavior in Midterm Congressional Elections.” The Journal of Politics 47:3143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Chris. 2001. “Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables.” Presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Paul. 1990. “Change Scores as Dependent Variables in Regression Analysis.” Sociological Methodology 20: 93114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Schousen, Matthew M.. 1993. “Policy Moderation or Conflicting Expectations? Testing the Intentional Model of Split-Ticket Voting.” American Politics Quarterly 21:410–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arcelus, Francisco, and Meltzer, Allan H.. 1975. “The Effects of Aggregate Economic Variables on Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69:232–39.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and McDonald, Michael. 2006. “Ideological Gerrymandering: Redistricting Effects on State Congressional Delegations.” Presented at the 2006 Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2001. “Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon.” International Organization, 55:487–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen, Baum, Lawrence, Clausen, Aage R., and Smith, Charles E. Jr. 1992. “Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 86:916–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyle, Thad, Niemi, Richard, and Sigelman, Lee. 2009. “Job Approval Ratings Database, 1958-2009.” www.unc.edu/%7Ebeyle/jars.html (March 21, 2011).Google Scholar
Bloom, Howard S., and Douglas Price, H.. 1975. “Voter Response to Short-Run Economic Conditions: The Asymmetric Effect of Prosperity and Recession.” American Political Science Review 69:1240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Book of the States. Various years. Lexington, KY: Council of State Government.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1990. “Strategic Politicians and Unresponsive Voters.” American Political Science Review 80:599612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, Richard. 1994. “Split-Ticket Voters, Divided Government, and Fiorina's Policy-Balancing Model.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19:95115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, Richard. 2000. “Policy-Balancing Models and the Split-Ticket Voter, 1972-1996.” American Politics Quarterly 28:131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., and Kimball, David C.. 1998. “A New Approach to the Study of Ticket Splitting.” American Political Science Review 92:533–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1966. Elections and the Political Order. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1985. “Explaining Presidential Losses in Midterm Congressional Elections.” The Journal of Politics 47:1140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1987. “The Revised Theory of Surge and Decline.” American Journal of Political Science 31:965–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1991. “The Presidential Surge and its Midterm Decline in Congressional Elections: 1868-1988.” The Journal of Politics 53:477–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1997. The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2004. “Policy Balancing and Preferences for Party Control of Government.” Political Research Quarterly 57:541–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1988. “The Reagan Years: Turning to the Right or Groping toward the Middle?” In The Resurgence of Conservatism in Anglo-American Democracies, eds., Cooper, Barry, Kornberg, Allan, and Mishler, William. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 430–60.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1996. Divided Government. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Geer, John G., Carter, Amy, McHenry, James, Teten, Ryan, and Hoef, Jennifer. 2004. “Experimenting with the Balancing Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 25:4963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President's Party.” American Political Science Review 71:4466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Macroeconomics and Micropolitics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2001. “Incumbent Popularity and Vote Choice in Gubernatorial Elections.” The Journal of Politics 63:585–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2009. “State Partisan Balance—1959 to 2007.” State Politics and Policy Data Resource. http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/SPPQ/journal_datasets/klarner.shtml (February 2009).Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean. 1998. “Back from Intermission: The 1994 Elections and the Return to Divided Government.” In Great Theatre: The American Congress in the 1990s, eds. E., Herbert, Weisberg, and Patterson, Samuel C.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 83108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. 1998. “Downsian Voting and the Separation of Powers.” American Journal of Political Science 42:1180–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Nadeau, Richard. 2004. “Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism.” The Journal of Politics 66:97112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, Ian, and Darcy, Robert. 1992. “Sources of Split-Ticket Voting in the 1988 American Elections.” Political Studies 40:695712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, Bruce, Stimson, James, and Waterman, Richard. 1986. “Interpreting U.S. Congressional Elections: The Exposure Thesis.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11:227–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R., and Doherty, Joseph. 1996. “The Road to Divided Government: Paved without Intention.” In Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order, eds.,Google Scholar
Peter, F. Galderisi, Herzberg, Roberta Q., and McNamara, Peter. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 85108.Google Scholar
Roscoe, Douglas D. 2003. “The Choosers or the Choices? Voter Characteristics and the Structure of Electoral Competition as Explanations for Ticket Splitting.” The Journal of Politics 65:1147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Kyle L., Abramowitz, Alan, and Williamson, Jonathan. 2005. “A New Kind of Balancing Act: Electoral Certainty and Ticket-Splitting in the 1996 and 2000 Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 58:6978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, Wahlbeck, Paul J., and Buell, Emmett H. Jr. 1997. “Vote Choice and the Preference for Divided Government: Lessons of 1992.” American Journal of Political Science 41:879–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Charles E., Brown, Robert D., Bruce, John M., and Marvin Overby, L.. 1999. “Party Balancing and Voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election.” American Journal of Political Science 43:737–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1975. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Election.” American Political Science Review 69:812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Unemployment Rates by State.” http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?survey=lA&Map=state&seasonal=s (November 2009).Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey. 2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., McIver, John P., and Erikson, Robert S.. 2004. Aggregated CBS News/New York Times national polls [electronic file] php.indiana.edu/~wright1/cbs7603_pct.zip.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Balancing in the U.S. States, 1978–2009
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Balancing in the U.S. States, 1978–2009
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Balancing in the U.S. States, 1978–2009
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *