¹ See Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Willmoore, “The American Party Systems,” this Review, Vol. 48 (June 1954), p. 477 ff.Google Scholar

² The hypothesis is related to the suggestion of the Committee on American Legislatures of the American Political Science Association in 1954, that in states lacking a strong two-party system “factionalism … may have much the same effect ….” Zeller, Belle (ed.), American State Legislatures (New York, 1954), p. 192Google Scholar.

³ The seminal study of party and legislation is Lowell, A. Lawrence, “The Influence of Party upon Legislation in England and America,” Annual Report of the American Historical Society for the Year 1901, Vol. I (1902), p. 319 ffGoogle Scholar. In the Congress, see Turner, Julius, Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1951)Google Scholar, and Truman's, David case study, The Congressional Party (New York, 1959)Google Scholar. In state legislatures, see Keefe, William J., “Party Government and Lawmaking in the Illinois General Assembly,” Northwestern Univ. L. Rev., Vol. 47 (March 1952), p. 55 ff.Google Scholar, and “Parties, Partisanship, and Public Policy in the Pennsylvania Legislature,” this Review, Vol. 48 (June 1954), p. 450 ff.Google Scholar; Duncan MacRae, Jr., “The Relation Between Roll Call Votes and Constituencies in the Massachusetts House of Representatives,” id., Vol. 46 (December 1952), p. 1046 ff.; Malcolm E. Jewell, “Party Voting in American State Legislatures,” id., Vol. 49 (September 1955), p. 773 ff.; Derge, David R., “Urban-Rural Conflict: The Case in Illinois,” in Wahlke, John C. and Eulau, Heinz, Legislative Behavior (Glencoe, 1959), p. 218 ff.Google Scholar; Dye, Thomas R., “A Comparison of Constituency Influences in the Upper and Lower Chambers of a State Legislature,” Western Pol. Q., Vol. 14 (June 1961), p. 473 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ For a study in a one-party setting see Havens, Murray C., City versus Farm? Urban-Rural Conflict in the Alabama Legislature (University, Alabama: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, 1957)Google Scholar; however it has certain methodological weaknesses which are identified and discussed by Derge, op. cit., p. 227.

⁵ From 1947–1961, only one Republican has served in the 38-member Senate, and only in the sessions since the 1952 elections. He has been elected from the single-county Pinellas district (St. Petersburg).

⁶ V. O. Key, Jr., for example, perceived “an imperfect sort of sectionalism” in Florida, but noted that “the political differences between the two areas are not ordinary sectionalism; they are In fact rural-urban differences.” Southern Politic in State and Nation (New York, 1949), p. 92Google Scholar.

⁷ Friedman, Robert S., “The Urban-Rural Conflict Revisited,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14 (June 1961), p. 481 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Key, V. O. Jr., American State Politics: An Introduction (New York, 1956), pp. 229–230Google Scholar.

⁹ Op. cit., p. 485.

¹⁰ Two other features of the office may be noted. Florida has no Lieutenant Governor; the President succeeds to the Governorship when it becomes vacant. This feature of the office has been prominent since Senate President Charley Johns succeeded to the Governorship in 1953 upon the death of Governor Dan McCarty. And after the 1961 legislative session, Senate President W. Randolph Hodges was appointed by the Governor to be state Conservation Director. He did not resign as Senate President; under an Attorney General's opinion he is expected to occupy both posts until another Senate President is named in the 1963 session.

¹¹ In 1955 a senator from the southern section, Harry King, was designated to serve as President of the 1957 session. He never served, however, as he resigned from the senate to stand trial and conviction on charges of bribing a Representative from his county not to oppose him in the 1956 Democratic senatorial primary.

¹² A questionnaire was mailed to each. The standing committees of the Senate were listed beside a scale of five possible judgments as to their importance: most, much, some, little, and least. Each member of the panel was asked to use this scale to appraise the committees in terms of power, influence and prestige. There was 76 per cent return, and the responses were tabulated on the basis of 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 points for each designation of a committee corresponding to the adjectives on the scale. The values were averaged for each committee, and the committees were ranked accordingly.

¹³ This index is simpler than the Shapley-Shubik Power Index as it relates only to the function of degree of participation with the majority, whereas the Shapley-Shubik Power Index relates also to the function of the size of the majority. See Shapley, L. S. and Shubik, Martin, “A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System,” this Review, Vol. 48 (September 1954), p. 787 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Rice, Stuart A., Quantitative Methods in Politics (New York, 1928), p. 207 ffGoogle Scholar. Relative tests of cohesion have also been used, which reflect the percentage of a group voting on a particular roll call. The principal limitation of such relative tests is that in operation they tend to an elastic definition of the group under scrutiny, by assuming for purposes of measurement that it only comprises those of its members who vote on a given roll call. For example, if 50 per cent of a group voted “aye” and the remainder abstained from voting, a relative measure would show perfect cohesion of those voting, but the Rice Index would show a complete lack of cohesion for the entire group. The problem that each measure deals with, in its own way, is that of construing the significance of the non-voter. In this study the Rice Index was used precisely because it assumes that members of a defined group who do not vote on a roll call contribute to the group's lack of cohesion.

¹⁵ Stuart Rice, loc. cit.

¹⁶ Two southern seats and one northern seat deviated consistently from the patterns of sectional alignment on controversial roll calls. The rural northern seat from the St. Augustine district sided consistently with the southerners, while the southern seats from the urban Fort Myers and rural Kissimmee districts sided consistently with the northerners.

¹⁷ A detailed analysis of different policy preferences is in preparation. Here it is only intended to suggest the range of subjects through which group conflict and cohesion may be traced. The 305 controversial roll calls, 1955–1961, were grouped into the following thirteen categories (there was an additional “miscellaneous” catch-all) with an example of the kind of issue placed in each: (1) Agriculture and Conservation—establishing marketing standards for navel oranges; (2) Codes and Judicial Processes—abolishing the defense of entrapment in prosecutions for bribery; (3) Congressional Redistricting—providing for twelve congressional districts based on the 1960 census; (4) Constitutional Revision—authorizing the Legislative Council to prepare a revision of the state constitution; (5) Education—providing a chancellor over the presidents of the state universities; (6) Finance and Taxation—requiring consideration of specified factors other than full cash value in assessing the value of property for tax purposes; (7) Health and Welfare—authorizing cities to set and enforce minimum housing standards for human habitations; (8) Legislative Management—amending the rules to provide for open committee meetings; (9) Legislative Reapportionment—proposing changes in the number of legislative seats and reapportioning on that basis; (10) Political Processes—exempting non-state-wide candidates from the requirement of reporting campaign contributions and expenditures; (11) Race Relations—providing for referendum to close racially desegregated schools; (12) Regulation of Business—providing for minimum retail price-fixing for alcoholic beverages; (13) Roads and Highway Safety—establishing a South Florida Turnpike Authority.

¹⁸ “The Democratic and Republican parties took clearly opposing positions on only 115, or 36 percent, of the 320 roll-call votes in 1961 …. The analysis, new this year, examined only those votes on which a majority of voting Northern Democrats and a majority of voting Southern Democrats took the same position, and were opposed by a majority of Republicans.” Congressional Quarterly, Vol. 19, Weekly Report No. 47 (Nov. 24, 1961)Google Scholar.