¹ Eldersveld, Samuel J., “The Independent Vote: Measurement, Characteristics, and Implications for Party Strategy,” American Political Science Review, 46 (09, 1952), 732–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some of the earlier work includes Lowell, A. Lawrence, “Oscillations in Politics,” Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 12 (07, 1898), 69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chapin, F. S., “Variability of the Popular Vote at Presidential Elections,” American Journal of Sociology, 18 (09, 1912), 222–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ogburn, W. F. and Jaffe, Abe J., “Independent Voting in Presidential Elections,” American Journal of Sociology, 42 (09, 1936), 186–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gosnell, Harold F. and Gill, Norman N., “An Analysis of the 1932 Presidential Vote in Chicago,” American Political Science Review, 29 (12, 1935), 967–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² See, for example, Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald and Miller, Warren E., The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, 1952)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., Elections and the Political Order (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966)Google Scholar.

³ Campbell et al., The American Voter, p. 128.

⁴ Campbell et al., Elections and the Political Order, chap. 2.

⁵ Ibid., chap. 3.

⁶ Ibid., chap. 4.

⁷ Ibid., chap. 7.

⁸ Ibid., chap. 13.

⁹ Ibid., chap. 14.

¹⁰ Campbell et al., The American Voter, chap. 8.

¹¹ Campbell et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 141.

¹² Converse, Phillip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E. (New York: The Free Press, 1964), pp. 206–261Google Scholar.

¹³ Dreyer, Edward C., “Change and Stability in Party Identifications,” Journal of Politics, 35 (08, 1973), 712–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Dobson, Douglas and Meeter, Duane A., “Alternative Markov Models for Describing Change in Party Identification,” American Journal of Political Science, 18 (08, 1974), 487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 137Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 140Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 144 (italics in the original).

²⁰ Dreyer, Edward C., “Media Use and Electoral Choices: Some Consequences of Information Exposure,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 35 (Winter, 1971–1972), 544–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Ibid., p. 550.

²² Ibid., p. 553.

²³ Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 141Google Scholar.

²⁴ Dreyer, , “Media Use and Electoral Choices,” p. 545Google Scholar.

²⁵ The data to be used in this paper are from a panel study conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan during the presidential elections of 1956 and 1960, and the congressional election of 1958. A national probability sample of 1762 respondents was taken in 1956. Respondents were reinterviewed in 1958 and again in 1960. The effort yielded 1514 usable cases over the four-year time span, with a weighted N of 1966. For purposes of the analysis to be performed here, respondents who were not interviewed at all three points in time were excluded, resulting in a weighted N of 1256.

For technical documentation on SRC sampling techniques, see: Kish, Leslie and Hess, Irene, The Survey Research Center's National Sample of Dwellings (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1965)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Throughout this analysis, unless otherwise noted, a seven-point measure of party identification has been used. The categories are: Strong Democrat, Weak Democrat, Independent Democrat, Independent, Independent Republican, Weak Republican, Strong Republican. Interparty change is denned as moving from one of the first three positions named to one of the last three named or vice versa. Stability is defined as failure to change categories in the period stated. Finally, intraparty change is defined by one of three conditions: (1) moving from any partisan position to any other partisan position while remaining within the same party; (2) moving to Independent; or (3) moving from Independent to a partisan position.

²⁷ Converse's examination of mass belief systems seems pertinent here. In that work, he finds that many of those at the highest levels of ideological sophistication identify themselves as Independents. If the concept of political independence was integrated into such highly organized belief systems, relatively high rates of stability should be expected. For a discussion of the point, see Converse, “Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” pp. 227–229.

²⁸ The optimal procedure for the examination of patterns of change in party identification across the entire period from 1956 to 1960 would be to hold 1956 party identification constant and examine the distribution of 1960 party identification conditioned on 1958 identification. This procedure, however, yields an unwieldy table with some 343 cells. In order to deal with this problem, Table 4 was constructed from that larger table.

²⁹ Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order, p. 137Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ibid., and Dreyer, “Media Use and Electoral Choices.”

³¹ See Converse, “Belief Systems in Mass Publics.”

³² We have no intention of broaching the implied causal relationship here. At this juncture, we really have no idea whether change in party attachment is “caused” by change in vote intention or vice versa. We rather suspect that change in both party attachment and vote occurs concomitantly as a function of changes in other partisan attitudes.

³³ The test for linear trend in proportions is a weighted regression of the estimated column proportions in a 2 × c table on scores assigned to each of the c columns. For further discussion see Cochran, W. G., “Some Methods for Strengthening Common X² Tests,” Biometrics, 10 (12, 1954), 417–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ An excellent guide to this literature is to be found in the June, 1972 American Political Science Review symposium on issue voting. In particular, see Kessel, John H., “Comment: The Issues in Issue Voting,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), 459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.