Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:50:25.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Causes and Consequences of Polarization

from Introductory Chapters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Michael J. Barber
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Nolan McCarty
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Nathaniel Persily
Affiliation:
Stanford Law School
Get access

Summary

Rarely these days does a news cycle pass without new stories of political dysfunction in Washington, D.C. Reports of stalemates, fiscal cliffs, and failed grand bargains have begun to erode the public confidence in the ability of our representative institutions to govern effectively. In May 2013, only one American in six approved of the way Congress has handled its job. Sadly, that level of support was a major improvement from the previous summer, when wrangling over the usually routine matter of raising the debt ceiling drove congressional approval down to 10%.

The most common diagnoses of Washington's ailments center on the emergence of excessive partisanship and deep ideological divisions among political elites and officeholders. In short, “polarization” is to blame. Consequently, the reform-minded have taken up the mantle of reducing polarization or mitigating its effects. In recent years, proposals for electoral reform to change electoral districting, primary elections, and campaign finance have been presented as panaceas. Other reformers have focused on changing legislative procedures such as those related to the filibuster, appropriations, and confirmation process to limit the opportunities for polarization to undermine government.

Although there has been intense public discussion about the causes of polarization, its consequences, and possible cures, social science research has only recently begun to help shape those discussions. The intent of this chapter is to provide a more evidence-based foundation for these debates.

PRELIMINARIES

The academic study on partisanship and polarization is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. Noteworthy qualitative accounts, which often combine historical research and participant observation, include Rohde (1991), Sinclair (2006), Hacker and Pierson (2006), and Mann and Ornstein (2012).

The starting point for many quantitative studies of polarization is the robust observation of rising partisan differences in roll-call voting behavior in Congress. The bipartisan coalitions of the 1950s and 1960s have given way to the party-line voting of the twenty-first century. Although these trends are apparent in simple descriptive statistics about partisan divisions on roll calls, political scientists have developed more refined measures of partisan voting differences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, and Rohde, David W. 2010. “Consequences of Electoral and Institutional Change: The Evolution of Conditional Party Government in the U. S. House of Representatives.” In New Directions in American Political Parties, ed. Stonecash, Jeffrey M., pp. 234–250. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M, and Snyder, James M.. 2003. “Why is There so Little Money in U. S. Politics?Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M.. 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(2): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael. 2013. “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of State Legislatures?” Typescript. Princeton: Princeton University.
Baron, David P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uniformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Maltzman, Forrest. 2009. Advice and Dissent: The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Smith, Steven S.. 1997. Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, Bill. 2009. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans Is Tearing Us Apart. New York: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57(2): 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(1): 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Mark, Mariani, Mack, and Stonecash, Jeffrey M.. 2002. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, Will, and Clinton, Joshua D.. 2011. “More a Molehill than a Mountain: The Effects of the Blanket Primary on Elected Officials' Behavior from California.” Journal of Politics 73(3): 915–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Canon, David T. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Crespin, Michael H., Finocchiaro, Charles J., and Rohde, David W.. 2007. “Redistricting and Party Polarization in the US House of Representatives.” American Politics Research 35(6): 878–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” Journal of Politics 68(2): 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Public.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David. New York: Free Press: 1–74.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Poole, Keith T.. 2002. “On Measuring Partisanship in Roll-Call Voting: The US House of Representatives, 1877–1999.” American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Susan. 2012. “This Congress Could Be Least Productive since 1947.” USA Today. August 15, 2012. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-14/unproductive-congress-not-passing-bills/57060096/1.
DellaVigna, Stefano, and Kaplan, Ethan. 2007. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(3): 1187–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Mickey. 2012. The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Eilperin, Juliet. 2007. Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship Is Poisoning the House of Representatives. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ensley, Michael J. 2009. “Individual Campaign Contributions and Candidate Ideology.” Public Choice 138(1): 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean. 2010. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2013. “Party Homogeneity and Contentious Politics,” In Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics, eds. Shea, Daniel M. and Fiorina, Morris P.. New York: Pearson: 142–153.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy. 2005. Culture War? Myth of a Polarized America. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Francia, Peter, Green, John, Herrnson, Paul, Powell, Lynda, and Wilcox, Clyde. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Garand, James C. 2010. “Income Inequality, Party Polarization, and Roll-Call Voting in the US Senate.” Journal of Politics 72(4): 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2009. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, Matthew, and Shapiro, Jesse M.. 2006. “Media Bias and Reputation.” Journal of Political Economy 114(2): 280–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Karlan, Dean, and Bergan, Daniel. 2009. “Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(2): 35–52.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Morton, Rebecca B.. 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 14(2): 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James, and Edwards, James R.. 1998. The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform. London: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James, Lee, Frances, and Kaminski, Joshua. 2006. “The Political Geography of Campaign Contributions in American Politics.” Journal of Politics 68(3): 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James, Lee, Frances, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2008. “The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder Jr, James M.. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the US Congress.” American Political Science Review 93(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, and McCarty, Nolan. 2001. “The Politics of Blame: Bargaining before an Audience.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, and Milyo, Jeff. 2005. “A Measure of Media Bias.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(4): 1191–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2006. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84(3): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Christopher, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2012. “Polarization is Real (and Asymmetric).” Voteview Blog. May 16, 2012. Retrieved Dec. 2013, from http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494.
Hirano, Shigeo, Snyder Jr., James M., Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hansen, John Mark. 2010. “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in U.S. Congressional Elections.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(2): 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel J., and Ladd, Jonathan. 2014. “The Consequences of Broader Media Choice: Evidence from the Expansion of Fox News.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 763(3): 405–431.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 334–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperowicz, Pete. 2012. “Parties Trade Blame for ‘Least Productive Congress' in Decades.” The Hill. Sept. 14, 2012. Retrieved Dec. 2013, from http://thehill.com/video/house/249597-cantor-hoyer-trade-barbs-on-the-way-out-the-door-to-2012-elections.
Kaufmann, Karen M., Gimpel, James G., and Hoffman, Adam H.. 2003. “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation.” Journal of Politics 65(2): 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinkner, Philip A. 2004. “Red and Blue Scare: The Continuing Diversity of the American Electoral Landscape.” The Forum (2)2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, and Carsey, Thomas. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension' in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 786–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Richard, Herrera, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104(2): 324–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader: How Voters Respond to Politicians' Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 2011. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It. New York: Hachette Book Group.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S., Pope, Jeremy C., and Jackman, Simon D.. 2008. “Measuring District-Level Partisanship with Implications for the Analysis of US Elections.” Journal of Politics 70(3): 736–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012. It's Even Worse than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2008. “Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth, Shor, Boris, Rogers, Steven, and McCarty, Nolan. 2013. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” Typescript. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan 2007. “The Policy Effects of Political Polarization.” In The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, eds. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 223–255.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2012. “The Politics of the Pop: The U. S. Response to the Financial Crisis and the Great Recession.” In Coping with Crisis: Governmental Responses to the Great Recession, eds. Bermeo, Nancy and Pontusson, Jonas. New York: Cambridge University Press: 201–232.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress.” American Political Science Review 95(3): 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 666–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Razaghian, Rose. 1999. “Advice and Consent: Senate Responses to Executive Branch Nominations 1885–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 1122–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, Hoffmann, Paul J., and O'Hara, Rosemary. 1960. “Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers.” American Political Science Review 54(2): 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minta, Michael D. 2009. “Legislative Oversight and the Substantive Representation of Black and Latino Interests in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(2): 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minta, Michael D., and Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. 2013. “Diversity in Political Institutions and Congressional Responsiveness to Minority Interests.” Political Research Quarterly 66(1): 27–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Woojin. 2004. “Party Activists, Campaign Resources and Candidate Position Taking: Theory, Tests and Applications.” British Journal of Political Science 34(4): 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Chrisopher S., and Barreto, Matt A.. 2013. Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pew Center. 2012. “Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush and Obama Years.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years.
Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel. 2003. “Income Inequality in the United States 1913–1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131: 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Robert. 2013. “The Real Price of Congress's Gridlock.” New York Times, August 13.
Roberts, Jason M. 2007. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll-Call Data: A Cautionary Tale.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(3): 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Jason M., and Smith, Steven S.. 2003. “Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the US House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 47(2): 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Shaw, Daron. 2012. “If Everyone Votes Their Party, Why Do Presidential Election Outcomes Vary So Much?The Forum 3(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John. 2012. “Your Do-Nothing Congress (in One Graph).” Washington Monthly. Sept. 21, 2012. Retrieved Dec. 2013, from www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/09/your_donothing_congress_in_one040039.php.
Sinclair, Barbara. 2006. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2008. “Spoiling the Sausages? How a Polarized Congress Deliberates and Legislates.” In Red and Blue Nation? Consequences and Corrections of America's Polarized Politics, eds. Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press: 55–79.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, and Williamson, Vanessa. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Richard A. 1995. “Interest Group Influence in the US Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(1): 89–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder Jr., James M., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder Jr., James M., and Stromberg, David. 2010. “Press Coverage and Political Accountability.” Journal of Political Economy 118(2): 355–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, Jennifer. 2012. “Congress Nearing End of Session Where Partisan Input Impeded Output.” New York Times, Sept. 18. 2012. Retrieved Dec. 2013, from www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/politics/congress-nears-end-of-least-productive-session.html.
Stone, Walt J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. “Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Paul. 2010. “Estate Tax Will Return Next Year, but Few Will Pay It.” New York Times, December 17.
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10: 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the US Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008a. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008b. “The Procedurally Polarized Congress.” Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Tichenor, Daniel. 2002. Dividing Lines. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1973. “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67(2): 540–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Sophia J. 2012. “It's Complicated: Latinos, President Obama, and the 2012 Election.” Social Science Quarterly 93(5): 1360–1383.Google Scholar
Wallace, Sophia J., Zepeda-Millán, Chris, and Jones-Correa, Michael. 2014. “Spatial and Temporal Proximity: Examining the Effects of Protests on Political Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory, and Schickler, Eric. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the US Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zelizer, Julian E. 2006. On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and Its Consequences, 1948–2000. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zepeda-Millán, J. Chris. 2011. Dignity's Revolt: Threat, Identity, and Immigrant Mass Mobilization. PhD diss., Cornell University.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×