Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-gqcv8 Total loading time: 0.212 Render date: 2021-05-11T17:12:20.616Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Gerald C. Wright Jr.
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Michael B. Berkman
Affiliation:
Indiana University

Abstract

This analysis demonstrates that policy issues play an important role in the selection of members of Congress. We differ with the conclusion of much of the existing research on congressional elections, which indicates that policy considerations are of minor importance. We have conducted an analysis of the 1982 U.S. Senate elections, drawing on data from the CBS News/New York Times 1982 congressional poll and from 23 statewide exit polls. We demonstrate that (1) candidates behave as though they believe issues are important to voters; (2) candidates' policy positions systematically influence voters' decisions; and (3) candidates' issue positions and voters' evaluations of the president and the economy interact to provide clear patterns of policy effects on Senate election outcomes. Policy effects are substantial and systematic in Senate elections, and cannot be omitted if we are to appreciate the importance of congressional elections in the national policy-making process.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 1980. A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative in 1978. American Political Science Review, 74:633–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan. 1981. Choices and Echoes in the 1980 U.S. Senate Elections: A Research Note. American Journal of Political Science, 25:112–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John N., and Nelson, Forrest D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranson, Peter H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1972. Spatial Strategies for Sequential Elections. In Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds., Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Backstrom, Charles H. 1977. Congress and the Public: How Representative is the One of the Other? American Politics Quarterly, 5:411–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, and Lynn, Naomi. 1973. Switched-Seat Congressional Districts: Their Effect on Party Voting and Public Policy. American Journal of Political Science, 17:528–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, and Sinclair, Barbara. 1984. Building Majorities for Policy Changes in the House of Representatives. Journal of Politics, 46:1033–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clymer, Adam. November 4, 1982. Lesson of '82 Elections: Ideology Overshadowed by Fears on the Economy. New York Times.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1972. The Positions of Political Parties in Elections. In Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds., Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Apter, David E., ed. Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1977. Congress and the Quest for Power. In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1986. A Theory of Congressional Cycles: Solving the Puzzle of Change. In Wright, Gerald C. Jr., Rieselbach, Leroy, and Dodd, Lawrence C., eds., Congress and Policy Change. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. 1982. Ideological Change in the U.S. Senate: Time and Electoral Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7:7592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. The Electoral Impact of Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Political Science Review, 65:1018–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. Jr., 1980. Policy Representation of Constituency Interests. Political Behavior, 2:91106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. Jr., 1985. Voters, Candidates and Issues in Congressional Elections. In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered, 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Eubank, Robert B. 1985. Incumbent Effects on Individual-Level Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections: A Decade of Exaggeration, Journal of Politics, 47:959–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Robert J. 1982. In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26: 797833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A., and Jackson, John E.. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1984. The Liberal Hour: Electoral Pressures and Transfer Payment Voting in the United States Congress. Journal of Politics, 46: 846–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R.. 1981. The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who is Held Responsible? American Journal of Political Science, 25:423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R.. 1982. Economic Conditions and the Forgotten Side of Congress: A Foray into U.S. Senate Elections. British Journal of Political Science, 12:505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Brandes, Sara L.. 1983. State Population and the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators. American Journal of Political Science, 27:808–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1980a. The American Voter in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review, 74:641–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1980b. House Reelection and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 10:441–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1970. Plurality Maximization vs. Vote Maximization: A Spatial Analysis with Variable Participation. American Political Science Review, 64:772–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., Ledyard, John O., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1973. A Theory of Electoral Equilibrium: A Spatial Analysis Based on a Theory of Games. Journal of Politics, 35:154–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Congressional Elections, 1978: The Case of the Vanishing Challengers. Presented at the Conference on Congressional Elections, Houston, TX, January 10–12.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1985. The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–1982. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. Policy-oriented Voting in Response to Economic Issues. American Political Science Review, 75:448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1979. Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgements in Congressional Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 22: 495527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review, 65:131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individual-Level Findings on Economics and Elections and Sociotropic Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 77:92111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and West, Darrell. 1981. Economic Expectations and Mass Voting in United States House and Senate Elections. American Political Science Review, 75:436–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1980. Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review, 74:617–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R.. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Glenn R. 1980. The Advantage of Incumbency in House Elections. American Politics Quarterly, 8:449–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1981. Dimensions of Interest Group Evaluation of the U.S. Senate 1969–1978. American Journal of Political Science, 25:4967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. The Polarization of American Politics. Journal of Politics, 46:1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Daniels, R. Steven. 1985. Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review, 79:373–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Jerrold E. 1979. Ideological Coalitions in Congress. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, John E., and Fenmore, Barton. 1977. Congressional Election Results and Congressional Roll Call Behavior: The Case of 1964, 1968 and 1972. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2:409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom R., and Allen, Harris M. Jr., 1980. Self-interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting. American Political Science Review, 74:670–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, William R. 1980. Party and Ideology in the United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1966. Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency. American Political Science Review, 60:1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, John L., and O'Connor, Robert E.. 1972. Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public Policy. American Political Science Review, 66: 1256–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Martin. 1984. Election Proximity and Senatorial Roll Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 29:96111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weatherford, R. Stephen. 1983. Economic Voting and the “Symbolic Politics” Argument: A Reinterpretation and Synthesis. American Political Science Review, 77:158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlye, Mark C. 1983. Competitiveness of Senate Seats and Voting Behavior in Senate Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 27:253–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories. American Political Science Review, 77:142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., 1978a. Issue Strategy in Congressional Elections: The Impact of the Primary Electorate. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., 1978b. Candidate Policy Positions and Voting in Congressional Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 3:445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., 1986. Elections and the Potential for Policy Change in Congress. In Wright, Gerald C. Jr., Rieselbach, Leroy, and Dodd, Lawrence C., eds., Congress and Policy Change. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1985. Candidates and Policy in the 1982 U.S. Senate Elections: A Comparative State Analysis. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P.. 1985. Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data. Journal of Politics, 47:469–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

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

Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *