Jerrold G. Rusk

Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation

The story of a presidential election year is in many ways the story of the actions and interactions of those considered as possible candidates for their nations highest office. If this is true in the abstract, it certainly was true in the election of 1968. The political headlines of 1968 were captured by those who ran for the nominations of their parties, those who pondered over whether or not to run, those who chose to pull out of the race or were struck down during the campaign, those who raised a third party banner, and those who resisted suggestions to run outside the two-party structure. While 1968 may have been unusual in the extent to which many prospective candidates dominated the political scene, every presidential election is, in its own way, highlighted by those considered for the office of President. The political scientist has shown scholarly interest in the candidates. His interest, however, has been selective in its focus—mainly concentrating on the two actual party nominees and not the larger set of possible presidential candidates. Research in electoral behavior has detailed the popular image of the nominees in terms of the publics reactions to their record and experience, personal qualities, and party affiliation. Furthermore, attitudes toward the nominees have been shown to constitute a major short-term influence on the vote. Yet attitudes toward other candidates have been surveyed only to ascertain the behavior of those people who favored someone other than the ultimate nominees.

Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election

Without much question, the third-party movement of George C. Wallace constituted the most unusual feature of the 1968 presidential election. While this movement failed by a substantial margin in its audacious attempt to throw the presidential contest into the House of Representatives, in any other terms it was a striking success. It represented the first noteworthy intrusion on a two-party election in twenty years. The Wallace ticket drew a larger proportion of the popular vote than any third presidential slate since 1924, and a greater proportion of electoral votes than any such movement for more than a century, back to the curiously divided election of 1860. Indeed, the spectre of an electoral college stalemate loomed sufficiently large that serious efforts at reform have since taken root. At the same time, the Wallace candidacy was but one more dramatic addition to an unusually crowded rostrum of contenders, who throughout the spring season of primary elections were entering and leaving the lists under circumstances that ranged from the comic through the astonishing to the starkly tragic. Six months before the nominating conventions, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had been the expected 1968 protagonists, with some greater degree of uncertainty, as usual, within the ranks of the party out of power. The nominating process for the Republicans followed the most-probable script rather closely, with the only excitement being provided by the spectacle of Governors Romney and Rockefeller proceeding as through revolving doors in an ineffectual set of moves aimed at providing a Republican alternative to the Nixon candidacy. Where things were supposed to be most routine on the Democratic side, however, surprises were legion, including the early enthusiasm for Eugene McCarthy, President Johnsons shocking announcement that he would not run, the assassination of Robert Kennedy in the flush of his first electoral successes, and the dark turmoil in and around the Chicago nominating convention, with new figures like Senators George McGovern and Edward Kennedy coming into focus as challengers to the heir apparent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Partisan Dealignment in the American Electorate: Itemizing the Deductions since 1964

According to the SRC-CPS surveys, the proportion of Americans identifying with a political party declined sharply between 1964 and 1976, from approximately 75 percent to 63 percent. In order to cast some light on the reasons for this dealignment, we examine the contributions made by the changing age composition of the electorate, the entry of new voters into the electorate, the party desertion among voters already in the electorate, and the suppression of age gains in partisanship. These four sources are shown to explain close to 100 percent of the aggregate decline from 1964 to 1976, with the single largest contribution made by entry of new voters. Nevertheless our findings indicate that the decline occurred throughout all age cohorts and suggest the potency of dealigning period forces. These forces simply had their strongest effect on those voters with predictably the least resistance, the youngest cohorts.

Political Participation in America: A Review Essay.

Political participation is an important subject in any democratic state. Who participates, in what ways, why, and with what effect are all topics of concern to the theorist and politician and, hopefully, to the everyday citizen. Many of our ideas on participation, so prominently displayed in the literature, were not empirically tested until survey methodology was developed in the post-World War II period. The pioneering work of the Columbia and Michigan election studies, in particular, cast doubt on the theorists assumption of an enlightened and involved citizenry. Other research studies contributed further data and fact, continuing to reduce our uncertainty about what political participation meant to the individual. In 1972, what was heralded as the all-embracing study on participation was published: Sidney Verba and Norman Nies Participation in America. Based on survey material collected from a national sample of the electorate in 1967, this study attempted to examine the entire Eastonian model as applied to participation the ways people participate in politics (the system or process), and the causes (inputs) and consequences (outputs) of this participation. The following is a summary of Verba and Nies major substantive and empirical findings with a later review of them in light of the conceptual and analytic techniques they employ, the past literature in the field, and the recent developments in our political system.

Casting Votes The National Campaign Context and State Turnout, 1920–2008

This study examines voter turnout in the American states in U.S. presidential and House elections from 1920 through 2008. A model predicts turnout as the sum of the national campaign context, state autonomy, and electoral continuity. The national campaign context encompasses conditions that prompt turnout to shift similarly across states. State autonomy involves state-specific factors that prompt turnout to vary across states. Electoral continuity involves people voting in successive elections, regardless of other influences. Testing the model finds that national campaign context effects have increased, but they vary by year, election type, and region and have been mixed since the 1970s.

WHO ARE NONVOTERS

This paper examines the motivations of individuals who do not vote in American elections from 1968 through 2012. Existing research portrays American nonvoters as a large monolith of people who lack psychological involvement in politics, do not have adequate personal resources to participate, have insufficient social networks to be engaged, or are not sufficiently mobilized by candidates and campaigns. Instead, our paper maintains that uncertainty in the national campaign context ?the economic, mass communication, legal, and international environments--drives individual citizens? decisions about whether to vote. When there is high uncertainty in the national campaign context, people are more likely to vote. When there is low uncertainty in the national campaign context, citizens are less likely to vote. The paper further develops a theoretical distinction between the external uncertainty found in the national campaign context and the internal uncertainty citizens feel about which candidate will adequately address the external uncertainty. In considering this internal uncertainty, four types of nonvoters emerge as they respond differently to the lack of clarity. First, the politically ignorant non-voters do not follow the campaign or the candidates so avoid internal uncertainty about them. Second, the indifferent follow the campaign and the candidates, but see no differences between the candidates, leaving internal uncertainty about them. Third, the dissatisfied know a good deal about the campaign context and the candidates but see one or more candidates negatively. They too do not vote because internal uncertainty about the candidates remains unresolved. Finally, the personal hardship nonvoters pay attention to the campaign and the candidates but do not vote because of personal hardship associated with unemployment. The paper first considers broad differences between voters and nonvoters in their knowledge of politics and attitudes toward elections. It then estimates a model of nonvoting across the time period. Finally, it considers in greater detail the four different types of nonvoters, who they are, and what motivates them not to participate. The study finds that at the presidential level, there are considerable numbers of dissatisfied nonvoters who do not vote because they have negative views of one or both candidates. At the midterm level, nonvoters are more likely to be politically indifferent, not having clear-cut views of one or both candidates.

Measures of Political Attitudes.

J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman, Scale Selection and Evaluation. J.A. Krosnick, Maximizing Questionnaire Quality. K. Knight, Liberalism and Conservatism. S. Feldman, Economic Values and Inequality. S.E. Finkel, L. Sigelman, and S. Humphries, Democratic Values and Political Tolerance. M. Biernat and C.S. Crandall, Racial Attitudes. M.J. Reef and D. Knoke, Political Alienation and Efficacy. J. Citrin and C. Muste, Trust in Government. J. Hurwitz and M. Peffley, International Attitudes. V. Price, Political Information. J.M. Shanks, Political Agendas. H.F. Weisberg, Political Partisanship. H.E. Brady, Political Participation.