Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:18:08.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Economic Expectations and Voting Behavior in United States House and Senate Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Darrell M. West
Affiliation:
Indiana University

Abstract

Past individual-level studies of economic voting (1) have incorrectly operationalized the model they employ by using past-oriented rather than future-oriented questions and (2) have failed to examine the level of economic voting in United States Senate elections. Using the 1978 National Election Study, we show that economic voting exists in Senate but not House elections, presumably due to the differences in electoral context. Even when economic voting occurs, however, there is no guarantee that the public will influence the direction of macroeconomic policy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1981

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

Asher, Herbert B., and Weisberg, Herbert F. (1978). “Voting Change in Congress: Some Dynamic Perspectives on an Evolutionary Process.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 391425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I. (1979). “Electoral Accountability in 1978: A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Arcelus, Francisco, and Meltzer, Allan (1975). “The Effect of Aggregate Economic Variables on Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69: 1232–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1979a). “Voter Turnout: Lowest Midterm Level Since 1942.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 37: 574.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1979b). “For Many Incumbents, Running for Re-election is Now a Full-time Job.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 37: 1350–57.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1980). “Senators Face Tough Re-election Odds.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 38: 905–10.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. (1971). “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3: 395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fair, Ray C. (1978). “The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 60: 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. (1975). “If, As Ralph Nader Says, Congress Is ‘The Broken Branch,” How Come We Love Our Congressmen So Much?” In Ornstein, Norman J. (ed.), Congress in Change. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1978). “Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro-Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 426–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1980). “Short-and Long-Term Effects of Economic Conditions on Individual Voting Decisions.” In Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., (ed.), Contemporary Political Economy. Amsterdam: New Holland.Google Scholar
Goodman, Leo A. (1972). “A General Model for the Analysis of Surveys.” American Journal of Sociology 77: 1035–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Leo A. (1973). “Causal Analysis of Data from Panel Studies and Other Kinds of Surveys.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1135–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara (1979). “House Reelections and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. (1980). “Congressional Elections, 1978: The Case of the Vanishing Challengers.” Presented at the Conference on Congressional Elections, Houston.Google Scholar
Keech, William R. (1980). “Elections and Macro-economic Policy Optimization.” American Journal of Political Science 24: 345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel (1977). “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President's Party.” American Political Science Review 71: 4466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. (1964). Politics, Parties, and Pressure Croups, 5th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick (1979). “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 495527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, David, and Burke, Peter J. (1980). Log-Linear Models. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. (1971). “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964.” American Political Science Review 65: 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Wolfinger, Raymond (1979). “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Parker, Glenn R., and Davidson, Roger H. (1979). “Why Do Americans Love Their Congressmen So Much More Than Their Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 5361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, George J. (1973). “General Economic Conditions and National Elections.” American Economic Review Proceedings 64: 160–67.Google Scholar
Traugott, Michael W., and Katosh, John P. (1979). “Response Validity in Surveys of Voting Behavior.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43: 359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1975). “Determinants of the Out-comes of Midterm Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69: 812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherford, M. Stephen (1978). “Economic Conditions and Electoral Outcomes: Class Differences in the Political Response to Recession.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 917–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar