Larry T. Aspin

The roll-off effect in judicial retention elections

Abstract Because of the absence of powerful traditional voting cues and the unusual nature and format of uncontested judicial retention elections, a large number of voters deliberately fail to cost ballots in retention elections. Filling a void in the study of retention elections, this study empirically examines the voter roll-off in 1,864 retention elections for major trial court judges for the period 1964–1984. The mean roll-off for these elections was 36.2%. Voter roll-off was found to be positively related to district size and number of counties in a judicial district. These trial court retention elections exhibit mixed relationships for different types of elections. Although in presidential and nonpresidential elections there is clear surge and decline in voter turnout, there is no corresponding surge and decline in roll-off. However, close retention elections have less roll-off than nonclose elections.

Thirty years of judicial retention elections: an update

Abstract This article updates prior reports on the empirical patterns and trends in judicial retention elections. The 3,912 elections encompass both major trial court and appellate court elections in ten states for the period from 1964 through 1994. Reported trends include declines in the affirmative vote, rolloff, and voter differentiation among individual judges. Detailed analysis of defeated judges indicates that regular retention voters quickly remove judges from the bench without any negative consequences for other judges on the ballot.

Distance from the Bench and Retention Voting Behavior: A Comparison of Trial Court and Appellate Court Retention Elections

This article examines an oft-repeated yet untested assumption about judicial retention elections: appellate court elections and trial court elections are so similar that a single explanation will suffice. Reported herein is a comparison of appellate and trial court retention elections in 10 states over the 1964-1988 time period. Comparisons of both the affirmative vote and roll-off begin with the basic aspects of each and then are expanded to include the relationships with judicial district characteristics, such as population. We conclude that while a single successful model of voting behavior in judicial retention elections would probably explain considerable variation in both trial and appellate court retention elections, there are differences between the levels which should be built into the model. In terms of differences, the clear and unquestioned difference between trial court and appellate court retention elections involves inter-judge differences. Appellate judges who are on the same retention bal...

Modeling behavior with attribute disparity: implicit relationships between attribute magnitudes and aggregated behavior

This article uses two measures of disparity, relative and absolute distance, to show that operationalizations of attribute disparity are logically linked to attribute magnitudes and monadic behavior. This existing integration of both explanatory devices and cases for analysis that have been incorrectly portrayed as competitors has a number of implications. Discussed consequences include the use of monadic patterns as empirical screening devices for dyadic models and the need for new uses of attributes in the dyad so that the dyadic model has appropriate inherent monadic assumptions.

A contextual analysis of power and foreign policy behavior

This article applies contextual analysis to state directed dyads and monads successfully achieving a more complete and empirically successful model of foreign policy behavior. While contextual analysis is a multilevel analysis integrating individual and group level variables, its logic can be applied to any unit of analysis and groups of such units. Benefits of contextual analysis include considering new explanatory models, in this case alternative uses of attribute magnitude in the directed dyad, and more comprehensive explanation by integrating variables often isolated at separate levels of analysis. A general proposition explaining volume of foreign policy behavior is advanced and then two more specific contextual models are delineated. Empirical testing with events data reveals a mixed additive interaction model to be far superior to previous population wide dyadic models.

An alternative to the field theory interpretation of cooperative dyadic behavior

Of major concern herein is the possibility that the purported empirical suport for Model II of field theory is supirous. Model II focuses on only the variation in behavior within dyadic sets and is empirically supported when this behavior is some function of target magnitude. It is shown, however, that other linkage mechanicms also assume the variation in behavior within dyadic sets is a function of target magnitude. Thus, it is logically possible that the empirical patterns interpreted as proof of Model IIs validity actually are the product of other general models. Such a general model, which focuses on the behavior best explained by Model II, is advanced and tested using the DON data. This general model is empiricaly supported and is more attractive than Model II because it explains variation not only within dyadic sets, but also across dyadic sets. There is thus serious question as to the degree of empirical support for Model II.

Dyads, monads and national attributes: How methodological changes can improve models of Foreign policy behavior

This article develops a dyadic model explaining participation with capability to demonstrate how recognizing and utilizing the logical ties between cases for analysis advances the explanation of state foreign policy behavior. While the direct use of attribute magnitudes in the dyad is unorthodox, when tested in two different data sets the model is found to be unquestionably superior to traditional uses of attributes.