Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 392
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Chortareas, Georgios Logothetis, Vasileios and Papandreou, Andreas A. 2016. Political budget cycles and reelection prospects in Greece's municipalities. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 43, p. 1.

    Debrah, Emmanuel 2016. The Ghanaian Voter and the 2008 General Election. Politikon, p. 1.

    Dubois, Eric 2016. Political business cycles 40 years after Nordhaus. Public Choice, Vol. 166, Issue. 1-2, p. 235.

    Eger, Steffen 2016. Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination. Mathematical Social Sciences, Vol. 80, p. 97.

    Glaurdić, Josip and Vuković, Vuk 2016. Voting after war: Legacy of conflict and the economy as determinants of electoral support in Croatia. Electoral Studies, Vol. 42, p. 135.

    HESS, GREGORY D. and SHELTON, CAMERON A. 2016. Congress and the Federal Reserve. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 48, Issue. 4, p. 603.

    Jacobs, Alan M. 2016. Policy Making for the Long Term in Advanced Democracies. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 433.

    Kogan, Vladimir Lavertu, Stéphane and Peskowitz, Zachary 2016. Performance Federalism and Local Democracy: Theory and Evidence from School Tax Referenda. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 418.

    Levin, Ines Sinclair, J. Andrew and Alvarez, R. Michael 2016. Participation in the Wake of Adversity: Blame Attribution and Policy-Oriented Evaluations. Political Behavior, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 203.

    Shtudiner, Ze′ev Klein, Galit and Kantor, Jeffrey 2016. Who is responsible for economic failures? Self-serving bias and fundamental attribution error in political context. Quality & Quantity,

    TANG, YEN-CHEN and CHANG, ALEX CHUAN-HSIEN 2016. Why Do Voters Change Their Evaluations of a President? A Taiwanese Case. Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, Issue. 02, p. 301.

    Taniguchi, Masaki 2016. The multi-store model for economic voting: Rome wasn't built in a day. Electoral Studies, Vol. 41, p. 179.

    Anson, Ian G. and Hellwig, Timothy 2015. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

    Bartkowska, Monika and Tiemann, Guido 2015. The Impact of Economic Perceptions on Voting Behaviour in European Parliamentary Elections. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 53, Issue. 2, p. 201.

    Boettke, Peter J. and Smith, Daniel J. 2015. Evolving views on monetary policy in the thought of Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan. The Review of Austrian Economics,

    Dusso, Aaron 2015. Incorrect voting in the 2012 U.S. presidential election: How partisan and economic cues fail to help low-information voters. Electoral Studies, Vol. 37, p. 50.

    Gomez, Brad T. and Hansford, Thomas G. 2015. Economic Retrospection and the Calculus of Voting. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 2, p. 309.

    Hansford, Thomas G. and Gomez, Brad T. 2015. Reevaluating the sociotropic economic voting hypothesis. Electoral Studies, Vol. 39, p. 15.

    Hayes, Rosa C. Imai, Masami and Shelton, Cameron A. 2015. ATTRIBUTION ERROR IN ECONOMIC VOTING: EVIDENCE FROM TRADE SHOCKS. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 53, Issue. 1, p. 258.

    Hellwig, Timothy and Marinova, Dani M. 2015. More Misinformed than Myopic: Economic Retrospections and the Voter’s Time Horizon. Political Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 4, p. 865.


Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964*

  • Gerald H. Kramer (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 March 1971

This study is an attempt to employ some simple statistical models, motivated by certain assumptions about voting akin to those discussed by Downs and others, in an attempt to explain short-term fluctuations in the division of the national vote for the U. S. House of Representatives, over the period 1896–1964. The models will yield quantitative estimates of the impact of economic conditions on congressional elections, and of the effects of incumbency and presidential “coattails” as well.

The notion that a vote represents a decision or rational choice between alternatives is an important theme in democratic theory. However, this rationality hypothesis has proved to be difficult to test empirically, particularly with survey data, from which most of our recent knowledge of individual voting behavior is drawn. The present study is an attempt to put a modified form of the rationality hypothesis to a different and in some respects more direct test than is readily possible with survey data.

The analysis bears directly on the substantive question of the relationships between economic conditions and U. S. national election results.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

V. O. Key Jr., The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge: Belknap Harvard, 1966)

T. Wilkinson and H. Hart , “Prosperity and Political Victory,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 14 (1950), 331335, at pp. 332, 334

Clark Tibbits , “Majority Votes and the Business Cycle,” American Journal of Sociology, 36 (1931), 596606

H. F. Gosnell and W. G. Coleman , “Political Trends in Industrial America: Pennsylvania as an Example,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 4 (1940), 473484, at p. 475

Albert Rees , H. Kaufman , S. J. Eldersveld , and F. Freidel , “The Effect of Economic Conditions on Congressional Elections, 1946–58,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 44 (1962), 458465

Donald E. Stokes and Warren E. Miller , “Party Government and the Saliency of Congress,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (1962)

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *