DOC

Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States

By Tiffany Gonzales,2014-04-05 21:53
10 views 0
Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States

    Electoral Behavior (Political Science 6367)

    Fall 2007

    (This syllabus is current as of August 22, 2007, but is subject to change.)

    Instructor: Noah Kaplan

    Class: Wednesday 1 - 4 pm, PGH 392

    Office: 431 PGH, ext. 3-3907

    E-mail: nkaplan@uh.edu

    This course is intended to familiarize students with the theoretical issues and the state of empirical research on an array of topics within the field of elections. There is a vast literature dealing with electoral behavior. Because of the normatively important role of elections and the existence of a great deal of good data, a lot of scholars have written, and continue to write, in this area. Thus, no claim is offered that the coverage in this seminar is either comprehensive of the field in general or for any specific topic.

Course Requirements (READ CAREFULLY):

    1) Always attend class and be prepared to discuss ALL the material assigned for the week.

    2) Write a short (3 pages long) theoretically-critical piece on two or more of the assigned readings. Give a 15 minute presentation at the beginning of class of your critical argument. Make your paper available to all your classmates by Tuesday 6PM. The number of short papers/presentations during the semester will be determined the first week of class.

    3) Write a 1-2 page-long reaction paper to your classmate’s critical paper and present it in 5 minutes (immediately after the 15’ presentation). Your paper and presentation need to be critical as well. You must engage your classmate’s argument. The number of reaction

    papers/presentations during the semester will be determined the first week of class.

    4) All students NOT presenting papers (requirements 2 and 3) must submit by Monday 6PM a list of 5 (five) CRITICAL questions based on the readings, which will serve to trigger discussion in class.

5) A final (research) paper.

Course Evaluation is based on the following:

20% of grade, individual presentation(s) with short paper(s);

    20% of grade, attendance and class participation throughout the semester; 10% of grade, paper proposal, and

    50% of grade, final paper.

Attendance Notice:

    All students are expected to attend class each and every time we meet. Only a highly contagious or severely grave disease is a valid excuse to miss class. As a significant percentage of your final grade depends on class participation, and you can only contribute to class discussion if you are present, it follows you cannot afford to be absent.

Required Books:

    ; Popkin, Samuel. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in

    Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 2nd edition.

    ; Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler. 2004. Partisan Hearts and

    Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Cheating and Plagiarism: All students are expected to observe the University of

    Houston’s rules against cheating and plagiarism. See the section on “Academic Honesty” in the University of Houston Studies handbook for a full statement regarding UH’s rules against cheating and plagiarism. A succinct discussion of the University’s policies with links to all the relevant regulations can be found at

    http://www.uh.edu/provost/stu/stu_syllabsuppl.html. Any violation may result in

    expulsion from the University. Cheating and plagiarism in this class will be punished to the maximum extent possible.

    ADA Statement: The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal

    antidiscrimination statute that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities. If you believe you have a disability requiring an accommodation, please contact UH’s Center for Students with Disabilities (CSD) at (713) 743-5400.

Schedule

     nd) 0. Introduction (August 22

Review syllabus

     th1. Turnout (August 29)

    ; Brady, Henry, Sidney Verba and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES:

    A Resource Model of Political Participation.” The American Political Science

    Review, 89(2): 271-294.

    ; Timpone, Richard J. 1998. Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United

    States.” The American Political Science Review 92(1): 145-158.

; McDonald, Michael and Samuel Popkin. 2001. “The Myth of the Vanishing

    VoterThe American Political Science Review 95(4): 963-974.

    ; Goldstein, Kenneth and Travis N. Ridout. 2002. “The Politics of Participation:

    Mobilization and Turnout over Time.” Political Behavior 24(1): 3-29. (Goldstein

    and Ridout responds/investigates Rosenstone and Hansen AND Putnam). ; Bendor, Jonathan, Daniel Diermeier and Michael Ting. 2003. “A Behavioral

    Model of Turnout.” The American Political Science Review, 97(2): 261-280.

    ; Achen, Christoper. 2006. “Expressive Bayesian Voters, their Turnout Decisions,

    and Double Probit.” Working Paper.

    Submitted: 2006-07-17

    http://polmeth.wustl.edu/workingpapers.php?text=turnout&searchkeywords=T&o

    rder=dateposted

    Recommended

    o Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Voting. New York: Harper and

    Row. Chapter 14.

    o Wolfinger, Raymond and Steven Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven and

    London: Yale University Press.

    o Teixeira, Ruy. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington DC:

    Brookings Institute.

    o Rosenstone, Steven and John Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and

    Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.

    o Verba, Sidney and Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and

    Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics Cambridge MA: Harvard

    University Press.

    o Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    o Dalton, Russell and Martin Wattenberg. 1993. “The Not So Simple Act of

    Voting.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Ada Finifter.

    Washington DC: American Political Science Association. Pp 193-218. (A review

    article; though a bit old, still useful).

    o Kanazawa, Satoshi. 1998. “A New Solution to the Collective Action Problem of

    Voter Turnout.” Journal of Politics 60: 974-95. (I tend to think that Bendor et al.

    is just a minor variation on Kanazawa).

    o Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2001. “De Gustibus Est Disputandum.” Social Forces 79 (3):

    1131-1162.

    o Martin, Steven and Ching-Yi A. Shieh. 2003. “Comment and Reply: No Evidence

    for Stochastic Learning in Voter TurnoutAmerican Sociological Review 68(1):

    153-159. (A response to Kanazawa).

    o Uhlaner, Carole. 1989. “Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups.”

    American Journal of Political Science, 33(2): 390-422.

    o Uhlaner, Carole. 1986. “Political Participation, Rational Actors, and Rationality:

    A New ApproachPolitical Psychology 7(3) 551-573.

    o Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Get Out The Vote! How to

    Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

o Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2005. Correction to Gerber and Green

    (2000), Replication of Disputed Findings, and Reply to Imai (2005). American

    Political Science Review 99(2):301-13.

    Subjects not covered include:

    Socialization and participation

    Life cycle and participation

    Activists and participation

    Interpersonal networks and participation

     Turnout and women

    Turnout and minorities

    Effect of motor voter on turnout

    Mail voting and participation

    Election Day Registration and Turnout

     th)2. Turnout (continued) and Effects of Turnout on Elections (continued) (Sept 5

    ; Leighley, Jan and Joathan Nagler. 1992. “Individual and Systematic Influences on

    Turnout: Who Votes? 1984.” Journal of Politics 54:718-40.

    ; Gerber, Alan and Donald Green. 2000. “The Effect of Canvassing, Telephone

    Calls and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” The American

    Political Science Review 94(3): 653-63.

    ; Wolfinger, Raymond, Steven Rosenstone and Richard McIntosh. 1981.

    “Presidential and Congressional Voters Compared.” American Politics Quarterly

    9:245-255.

    ; Ragsdale, Lyn and Jerrold Rusk. 1993. “Who Are Nonvoters? Profiles from the

    1990 Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 37(August): 721-

    46.

    ; Highton, Benjamin and Raymond Wolfinger. 2001. “The Political Implications of

    Higher Turnout” British Journal of Political Science 30(3): 483-506.

    ; Citrin, Jack; Eric Schickler; John Sides. 2003. “What If Everyone Voted?

    Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections.” American

    Journal of Political Science 47(1): 75-90.

     Recommended

    o Campbell, Angus. 1966. “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change.” In

    Elections and the Political Order, ed. Angus Campbell et al. New York: Wiley. o Campbell, James. 1987. “The Revised Theory of Surge and Decline.” American

    Journal of Political Science 31: 965-78.

    o Born, Richard. 1990. “Surge and Decline, Negative Voting, and the Midterm Loss

    Phenomenon: A Simultaneous Choice Analysis American Journal of Political

    Science 34(3)615-645.

    o Leighley, Jan and Jonathan Nagler. 1992. “Socioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout,

    1964-1988: The Voters Remain the Same.” The American Political Science

    Review, 86(3): 725-736.

o Shields, Todd and Robert Goidel. 1997. “Participation Rates, Socioeconomic

    Class Biases and Congressional Elections: A Crossvalidation.” American Journal

    of Political Science 41: 683-91.

    o Wattenberg, Martin and Craig Brians. 2002. “Partisan Turnout Bias in Midterm

    Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27(3): 407-21.

    o James DeNardo. 1980. “Turnout and the Vote: The Joke's on the Democrats.” The

    American Political Science Review, 74(2): 406-420.

    o Tucker, Harvey J., Arnold Vedlitz, and James DeNardo. 1986. "Does Heavy

    Turnout Help Democrats in Presidential Elections?" The American Political

    Science Review 80(4): 12911304.

    o Bennett, Stephen Earl, and David Resnick. 1990. "The Implications of Nonvoting

    for Democracy in the United States." American Journal of Political Science 34(3):

    771802.

    o Nagel, John and John McNulty. 1996. “Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in

    Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections.” The American Political Science Review

    90(4): 780-793.

     th3. Partisanship (Sept. 12)

    ; Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler. 2004. Partisan Hearts and

    Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    ; Franklin, Charles H. and John E. Jackson. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party

    Identification.” American Political Science Review 77: 957-973.

    ; Bartels, Larry M. 2000. Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.”

    American Journal of Political Science 44: 35-50.

Recommended

    o MacKuen, Michael, Robert S. Erikson and James A. Stimson. 1989.

    Macropartisanship.” The American Political Science Review, 83(4)1125-1142.

    o Abramson and Ostrom 1991. “Macropartisanship: An Empirical Assessment”

    American Political Science Review 85(1): 181-92.

    o MacKuen, Michael, Robert Erikson, James Stimson, Paul Abramson and Charles

    Ostrom. 1992. “Controversy: Question Wording and Macropartisanship”

    American Political Science Review 86(2): 475-486.

    o Green, Donald and Bradley. Palmquist. 1994. “How Stable is Party

    Identification?” Political Behavior 16 (1994): 437-66.

    o Abramowitz, Alan and Kyle Saunders. 2006. “Exploring the Bases of Partisanship

    in the American Electorate: Social Identify vs. Ideology.” Political Research

    Quarterly 59(2):175-187.

     th4. Issue Preferences, Ideology and Vote Choice (Sept. 19)

    ; Page, Benjamin and Calvin Jones. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy

    Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73:

    1071-89.

    ; Page, Benjamin and Richard Brody. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral

    Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66(3): 979-

    995.

    ; Carmines, Edward G. and James A. Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue

    Voting.” American Political Science Review 74: 78-91.

    ; Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Voting. New York: Harper and

    Row. Chapters 7 & 8.

    ; Rabinowitz, George and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory

    of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93-121.

    ; Conover, Pamela and Stanley Feldman. 1981. “The Origins and Meaning of

    Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Journal of Political Science,

    25(4): 617-645.

Recommended

    o Converse, P. E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Publics.” In D.

    Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.

    o Knight, K. 1985. “Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does

    Matter.” Journal of Politics 47 (3): 828-853.

    o Jacoby, William. 1991. “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.” American

    Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 178-205.

    o Page, Benjamin and C. Jones. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences,

    Party Loyalties and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73 (4): 1071-

    1089.

    o Luskin, McIver and Carmines. 1989. “Issues and the Transmission of

    Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (2): 440-458.

    o Thomas M. Carsey, Geoffrey C. Layman. 2006. Changing sides or changing

    minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate.”

    American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 464-477.

    o Carmines, Edward G. and James A. Stimson. 1986. “On the Structure and

    Sequence of Issue Evolution.” American Political Science Review 80 (3): 901-920.

    o Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper

    and Row.

    o Stokes, Donald. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political

    Science Review 57: 368-77.

    o Enelow, James and Melvin Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An

    Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    o Adams J, Bishin BG, Dow JK. 2004. “Representation in congressional campaigns:

    Evidence for discounting/directional voting in US Senate elections.” Journal of

    Politics 66 (2): 348-373.

    o Claassen, Ryan L. 2007. “Ideology and evaluation in an experimental setting -

    Comparing the proximity and the directional models.” Political Research

    Quarterly 60 (2): 263-273.

    o Abramowitz AI, Saunders KL. 2006. “Exploring the bases of partisanship in the

    American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology.” Political Research Quarterly

    59 (2): 175-187.

o Macdonald SE, Rabinowitz G, Listhaug O. 1995. Political Sophistication and

    Models of Issue Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 25: 453-483.

    o Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative

    Theories.” American Political Science Review 77: 142-57.

    o Randall L. Calvert. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model:

    Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of

    Political Science, 29(1): 69-95.

    o Robert S. Erikson; David W. Romero. 1990. “Candidate Equilibrium and the

    Behavioral Model of the Vote.” The American Political Science Review, 84(4):

    1103-1126.

    5. Information, Uncertainty and Vote Choice (Sept. 26)

    ; Popkin, Samuel. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in

    Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 2nd edition. ; Alvarez, R. Michael and Charles H. Franklin. 1994. “Uncertainty and Political

    Perceptions.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Aug., 1994), pp. 671-688. ; Bartels, Larry. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential

    ElectionsThe American Journal of Political Science, 40 (Feb.): 194-230.

    Recommended

    o Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York:

    Harper and Row. Chapters 11-13.

    o Shepsle, Kenneth. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and

    Electoral Competition.” American Poltiical Science Review 555-68.

    o Enelow, James and Melvin Hinich. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter

    Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model. “ American Journal of

    Political Science 25: 483-93.

    o Feldman, Stenley and Pamela Conover. 1983. “Candidates, Issues and

    Voters The Role of Inference in Political Perception.” Journal of Politics

    45 (4): 810-839 1983

    o Ferejon, John and Kuklinks. 1990. Information and Democratic Processes.

    Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (An edited volume).

    o Alvarez, Michael. 1999. Information and Elections. University of

    Michigan Press.

    o Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and

    Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” The

    American Political Science Review, 88(1): 63-76.

    o Lau, Richard and David P. Redlawsk. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” The

    American Political Science Review 91 (Sep.): 585-598.

    o Alvarez, Michael. 1999. Information and Elections. University of

    Michigan Press.

    o Achen Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels. 2006. “It Feels Like We’re

    Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy.” Working

    Paper.

     rd)6. Affect and Vote Choice (Oct. 3

    ; Conover, Pamela Johnston and Stanley Feldman. 1986. “Emotional Reactions to

    the Economy: I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going to Take It Anymore.”

    American Journal of Political Science 30: 50- 78.

    ; Lodge, Milton, Kathleen McGraw, and Patrick Stroh. 1989. “An Impression-

    Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83:

    499-420.

    ; Marcus, George. 1988. “The Structure of Emotional Response 1984 Presidential

    Candidates.” American Political Science Review 82 (3): 737-761.

    ; Marcus, George E. and Michael B. MacKuen. 1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm and

    the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During

    Presidential Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 87: 672-85.

    ; Milton Lodge et al. 1995. “The Responsive Voter” American Political Science

    Review 89: 309-26.

    Recommended

    o Marcus, George, W. Russell Neuman and Michael MacKuen. 2000.

    Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: The University of

    Chicago Press.

     th7. Economic Voting (Oct. 10)

    ; Kinder, Donald R. and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. “Sociotropic Politics: The

    American Case.” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1981),

    pp. 129-161

    ; Kramer, Gerald. 1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus

    Individual-level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.”

    The American Political Science Review, 77(1): 92-111.

    ; MacKuen, Michael, Robert Erikson, and James Stimson. 1992. "Peasants or

    Bankers?: The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy" American Political

    Science Review 86(3): 597-611.

    ; Clarke, Harold D. and Marianne C. Stewart. 1994. "Prospections, Retrospections,

    and Rationality: The "Bankers" Model of Presidential Approval

    Reconsidered." American Journal of Political Science, V ol. 38, No. 4. (Nov.):

    1104-23.

    ; Richard Nadeau, Michael S Lewis-Beck. 2001. “National Economic Voting in

    U.S. Presidential Elections.” The Journal of Politics 63 (1), 159–181. (objective

    vs. subjective economic debate).

    ; Gomez, Brad T., and J. Matthew Wilson. 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic

    Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution.” American

    Journal of Political Science 45 (October): 899-914.

    ; Rudolph, Thomas. 2003. "Who's Responsible for the Economy? The Formation

    and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions." American Journal of Political

    Science, 2003, 47 (October): 697-712.

     Recommended (Economic Voting)

    o Kramer, Gerald. 1971. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior,

    1896 1964The American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Mar.,

    1971), pp. 131-143.

    o Tufte, Edward R. 1975. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm

    Congressional Elections.” The American Political Science Review, 69(3):

    812-826.

    o Fiorina, Morris. 1978. "Economic Retrospective Voting in American

    National Elections: A Micro-Analysis" American Journal of Political

    Science 22 (1978): 426-443.

    o Kinder, Donald R. and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. “Economic Discontent

    and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective

    Economic Judgements in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of

    Political Science 23: 495-527. (probably not this one).

    o Raymond M. Duch; Harvey D. Palmer; Christopher J. Anderson.

    Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.”

    American Journal of Political Science, 44(4)635-652.

    o Lewis-Beck, Michael and Mary Stegmeier. 2000. “Economic

    Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science

    3: 183-219.

    o Achen, Christopher H and Larry M. Bartels. 2004. “Musical Chairs:

    Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.”

    Working Paper.

     th8. Congressional Elections and Divided Government (Oct. 17)

    ; Robert Erikson. 1988. “The Puzzle of the Midterm Loss,” Journal of Politics

    50(4): 1011-1029.

     Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House ;

    Elections, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review, 83:3.

    ; Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections:

    New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science, 34:2.

    ; Gerber, Alan. 1998. “Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables.” The American Political

    Science Review, 92(2): 401-411.

    ; Garand, James and Marci Glascock Lichtl. 2000. “Explaining Divided

    Government in the United States: Testing an Intentional Model of Split-Ticket

    Voting” British Journal of Political Science, 30(1): 173-191.

    ; Abramowitz AI, Alexander B, Gunning M. 2006. “Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in US House elections.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 75-

    88.

Recommended

    o Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections.

    Longman Press.

    o Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. "Why Did the Incumbency

    Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?" American Journal of Political

    Science 40, no. 2 (May 1996): 478-97.

    o Born, Richard. 1994. “Split-Tickert Voters, Divided Government and

    Fiorina’s Policy Balancing Model” LSQ 19(1):95-115.

    o Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. 1996. “A Dynamic Analysis of the Role of

    War Chests in Campaign Strategy.” American Journal of Political Science

    40:352-271.

    o Goodliffe, Jay. 2001. “The Effect of War Chests on Challenger Entry in

    US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45:830-844.

    o Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency

    and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-

    1982.” American Journal of Political Science, 31(1): 126-141.

    o Erikson, Robert and Thomas Palfrey. 1998. “Campaign Spending and

    Incumbency.” Journal of Politics, vol. 60.

    o Smith Jr., Charles, Robert D. Brown, and Marvin Overby. 1999. “Party

    Balancing and Voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election.”

    American Journal of Political Science 43: 737-64.

    o Erikson, Robert and Thomas Palfrey. 2000. “Equilibria in Campaign

    Spending Games: Theory and Data.” The American Political Science

    Review, 94(3): 595-609.

    o Canes-Wrone, Brandice , David W. Brady, and John F. Cogan. 2002. “Out

    of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members'

    Voting.” American Political ScienceReview 96: 127-40.

    o Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart III.

    2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and Personal Vote: Using Redistricting

    to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” AJPS 44:17-34.

    o Basinger, Scott and Michael Ensley. 220. “Candidates, Campaigns or

    Partisan Conditions? Reevaluating Strategic-Politicians Theory.”

    Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(3):361-394.

    o Levitt SD, Wolfram CD. 1997. “Decomposing the sources of incumbency

    advantage in the US House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1): 45-60.

    o Prior, Markus. 2006. “The incumbent in the living room: The rise of

    television and the incumbency advantage in US House elections.” Journal

    of Politics 68 (3): 657-673.

    o Carson, Jamie, Erik Engstrom and Jason Roberts. 2007. “Candidate

    quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in congressThe

    American Political Science Review 101 (2): 289-301.

     th9. Campaigns and Campaign Effects (Oct. 24)

    ; Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon and Nicholas Valentino. 1994 “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political

    Science Review 88(4): 829-838.

    ; Wattenberg, Martin and Craig Brians. 1999. “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review 93(4): 891-899.

    ; Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon. 1999. “Replicating

    Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout.” The American Political Science Review, 93(4): 901-

    909.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com