The theory of motivated reasoning predicts that partisan cues in the media will affect political attitudes, by encouraging individuals to align their views with those of their party's elites. The effect has primarily been tested by looking at issues which have pre-established partisan positions (e.g. immigration reform, gay rights, etc.). This study looks at the effects of partisan cues in the media on attitudes toward a non-partisan issue, the NSA's collection of American's meta-data. Additionally, the study extends research on partisan cues by exploring the moderating role of an individual's political communication network and, specifically, exposure to cross-cutting political communication. Findings are mixed: although there was no main effect of exposure to partisan cues in general, strong partisans were more affected by exposure to partisan cues than weak partisans. Additionally, although frequency of political discussion was not found to moderate the effect of partisan cues, individuals with high exposure to cross-cutting communication were significantly less affected by partisan cues than those with low exposure to cross-cutting communication. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.

No description available.

Divided government in Canada refers to the common situation when the federal and provincial governments are held by different political parties. The study of divided government can aid in the understanding of voter behaviour. The thesis reviews the relevant literature on divided government, split-ticket voting and party identification in Canada and the United States. From the literature several voter strategies are extracted that describe the possible individual level processes that result in the aggregate outcome of divided government. This linkage, between individual decisions and collective outcomes, is crucial to understanding divided election outcomes and it is to the exploration of this concept that the thesis contributes. Using a dataset of party vote shares in provincial and federal elections from 1904 to 2003, the thesis looks for aggregate effects of the individual level strategies that it identifies. The thesis argues that divided government in Canada is a result of staggered election timing and policy learning across levels which combine to produce a cyclical effect in election results.

Divided government in Canada refers to the common situation when the federal and provincial governments are held by different political parties. The study of divided government can aid in the understanding of voter behaviour. The thesis reviews the relevant literature on divided government, split-ticket voting and party identification in Canada and the United States. From the literature several voter strategies are extracted that describe the possible individual level processes that result in the aggregate outcome of divided government. This linkage, between individual decisions and collective outcomes, is crucial to understanding divided election outcomes and it is to the exploration of this concept that the thesis contributes. Using a dataset of party vote shares in provincial and federal elections from 1904 to 2003, the thesis looks for aggregate effects of the individual level strategies that it identifies. The thesis argues that divided government in Canada is a result of staggered election timing and policy learning across levels which combine to produce a cyclical effect in election results. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

The major purpose of this study is to analyze and assess the validity of those charges which have alleged: (1) that political parties impede voters' efforts to make rational choices between issue alternatives and between candidates by failing to take clear cut positions on the issues which confront them; and (2) that the parties frustrate the efforts of the voters to appraise legislative performance because that performance bears little resemblance to the program which the parties presented to the electorate. A second purpose of the study is historical: to investigate, and present an account of political and legislative developments in the nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties regarding four relatively broad issues. Each of these issues--foreign aid, civil rights, labor-management relations, and farm policy-received major national attention during the decades of the fifties and sixties and each continues to be significant as the nation enters the decade of the seventies.The study began by tracing the main elements in the historic background of the above issues. This background served as the springboard from which the investigations into the role of the political parties in formulating and implementing public policies were launched. The positions which the Democratic and Republican Parties developed on the issues were examined and contrasted for 1952 and 1960. In addition, the elaboration of these positions by the respective Presidential candidates was examined. The four issues were then studied as they were formulated into legislative proposals, and party legislative performance with respect to them was described and analyzed for the 83rd and 87th Congresses. These two Congresses were selected because in each one the party which had been out of power was reassuming control of both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency.The investigation of the four issues and the analysis of party performance with respect to them yielded only qualified answers to the two questions which guided the investigation. These two questions were: (1) Did the parties take clear-cut positions on the issues?; and (2) Did the party which controlled the Government follow through on the positions it had taken? With respect to party positions the study revealed that on two of the issues the parties did offer diametrically opposed alternatives. These two issues were labor-management relations and farm policy. Moreover, distinguishable alternatives were offered on the other two issues, foreign aid and civil rights.In the implementation of party programs the study revealed that on two of the issues, labor-management relations and civil rights, the Republicans in the 83rd and the Democrats in the 87th Congress honored their pledges more in the breach than in the observance. On the other hand, both parties did implement programs in foreign aid and in farm policy which corresponded with the programs they had sented during the respective campaigns.The data indicate then, that there were distinguishable differences between the positions taken by the parties on those issues which the study covered. In addition, the process by which these positions were reached as well as the legislative debates on the proposals stemming from them, should have enhanced, rather than inhibited the citizen's understanding of the important issues. Finally, the legislative debates and the voting records of the party members provided a basis for evaluating party performance. The results of this study strongly suggest that the interested citizen who takes the time to do so can use the machinery of the American party system to make intelligent choices at election time, and to evaluate the performance of the individuals and the party for whom he has voted.3

No description available.

This study has attempted to explain the dramatic challenges to the existing party system that occurred in Canada and the United States in the early 1990s. The emergence of new political movements with substantial power at the ballot box has transformed both party systems. The rise of United We Stand America in the United States, and the Reform Party in Canada prompts scholars to ask what forces engender such movements. This study demonstrates that models of economic voting and key models of party system change are both instrumental for understanding the rise of new political movements.

My dissertation examines the influence of partisanship in decision making on redistricting in state commissions and judicial rulings. My central questions are twofold. First, do Republican- and Democratic-appointed federal judges engage in decision making that favors their respective parties? Second, what is the extent of partisan voting on bipartisan state redistricting commissions? These issues possess considerable substantive importance. Some states have considered moving redistricting responsibility out of the legislature and into state commissions, while some political scientists and legal scholars have suggested more vigorous court involvement in the regulation of redistricting. Implicit in many of these arguments is the assumption that federal courts and state commissions will act as neutral arbiters. But, very little social science research exists on the behavior of these institutions. My investigation combines quantitative and qualitative evidence, using interviews I conducted of federal judges and redistricting commissioners across the country, together with statistical analyses of court decisions and commission votes. I have 138 court cases from 1981 to 2006, totaling 414 observations or judicial votes. I argue that federal judges are neither neutral arbiters nor partisan maximizers. Rather, federal judges act as constrained partisans. Judges do not necessarily favor their own party's plans in court cases anymore than they do plans created by both parties under divided government. But, when a federal judge reviews a redistricting plan drawn up by a different party, and where the judge's own party is the victim of partisan line-drawing, she will be more attuned to issues of unfairness in the process. Under circumstances where Supreme Court precedent is unclear, partisan cues become more salient for the judge, increasing the probability she will rely on partisan influences to declare the plan invalid. Interestingly enough, these partisan effects in judicial voting vanish in cases where the Supreme Court delineates unambiguous rules, such as litigation concerning 1 person 1 vote equal population claims. My analysis of state redistricting commissions, based on the votes of commissioners and in-depth interviews with them, illustrates that commissions, like courts, are also not immune to partisan decision-making. Partisan factors tend to be the overriding concern of commissioners. / text

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Prior studies on state legislative elections have found gubernatorial coattails playing a key role; however, they fail to examine the temporal and state-based trends of this phenomena. Using precinct level data from nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming), over two election cycles (2002 and 2006), I measure the importance a state’s ideological makeup, and a governor’s institutional powers has on gubernatorial coattails. Findings reaffirm the importance of coattails, and previously researched variables; however, the addition of the above measures greatly affects coattail strength, dependent on host of controlling factors.

The purpose of this research is to analyze the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of American federal government, during periods within which these two branches are led by different political parties, to discover whether the legislative branch attempts to independently legislate and enact foreign policy by using “the power of the purse” to either appropriate in support of or refuse to appropriate in opposition to military engagement abroad. The methodology for this research includes the analysis and comparison of certain variables, including public opinion, budgetary constraints, and the relative majority of the party that holds power in one or both chambers, and the ways these variables may impact the behavior of the legislative branch in this regard. It also includes the analysis of appropriations requests made by the legislative branch for funding military engagement in rejection of requests from the executive branch for all military engagements that occurred during periods of divided government from 1946 through 2009