Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique
Mcgregor, Michael and Spicer, Zachary 2016. The Canadian Homevoter: Property Values and Municipal Politics in Canada. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 123.
Anderson, Cameron D. and McGregor, R. Michael 2015. Economic Attitudes and Political Identities: Evidence from Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 27, Issue. 3, p. 361.
Lusinchi, Dominic 2012. “President” Landon and the 1936 Literary Digest Poll. Social Science History, Vol. 36, Issue. 01, p. 23.
Gidengil, Elisabeth Blais, André Everitt, Joanna Fournier, Patrick and Nevitte, Neil 2006. Back to the Future? Making Sense of the 2004 Canadian Election outside Quebec. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 39, Issue. 01,
Ogmundson, Richard 2002. The Canadian case: Cornucopia of neglected research opportunities. The American Sociologist, Vol. 33, Issue. 1, p. 55.
Andersen, Robert and Fox, John 2001. Pre-election polls and the dynamics of the 1997 Canadian federal election. Electoral Studies, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 87.
This review essay examines the contribution of the Canadian National Election Studies to understanding vote choice in Canada. Analyses using both the sociological approach and the social-psychological approach are discussed. The essay starts with a review of the debates about the role of class, region and religion in Canadian voting and then goes on to discuss the applicability of the concept of party identification to Canada. An evaluation of both recursive and non-recursive models of vote choice follows. The review calls for social psychological approaches to take the social context of political choice more seriously and points to the need for sociological approaches to conceptualize social categories as live social forces.
Cet article passe en revue les études portant sur les élections fédérales canadiennes et évalue leur contribution à la compréhension du choix électoral au Canada. L'auteure discute des analyses faisant usage des approches sociologiques et psychosociales. Après une revue des débats rattachés à l'incidence des classes, des r´gions et de la religion sur le vote canadien, l'article examine l'applicabilité du concept d'identification partisane au Canada. Cet examen est suivi d'une évaluation des modèles récursifs et non-récursifs du choix électoral. L'auteure incite les tenants des approches psychosociales à considérer plus sérieusement le contexte social du choix politique et montre l'avantage qu'auraient les approches sociologiques à conceptualiser les catégories sociales en termes de forces sociales dynamiques.
1 Wiseman Nelson, “The Use, Misuse, and Abuse of the National Election Studies,” Journal of Canadian Studies 21 (1986), 21. A tightly argued response to Wiseman's criticisms has been offered by Archer Keith, “The Meaning and Demeaning of the National Election Studies,” Journal of Canadian Studies 24 (1989), 122–140. For Wiseman's reply, see Wiseman Nelson, “The National Election Studies Revisited,” Journal of Canadian Studies 24 (1989), 141–147.
2 Elkins David J. and Blake Donald E., “Voting Research in Canada: Problems and Prospects,” this Journal 8 (1975), 313.
3 The 1984 team, for example, have used their data to analyze the nature of ideological beliefs and beliefs about differences between social classes, feelings of political efficacy and trust, gender and political activity, and sources of political knowledge. Lambert Ronald D., Curtis James E., Brown Steven D. and Kay Barry J., “Canadians' Beliefs about Differences between Social Classes,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 11 (1986), 379–399; Lambert Ronald D., Curtis James E., Brown Steven D. and Kay Barry J., “In Search of Left/Right Beliefs in the Canadian Electorate,” this Journal 19 (1986), 541–563; Lambert Ronald D., Curtis James E., Brown Steven D. and Kay Barry J., “Effects of Identification with Governing Parties on Feelings of Political Efficacy and Trust,” this Journal 19 (1986), 705–728; Kay Barry J., Lambert Ronald D., Brown Steven D. and Curtis James E., “Gender and Political Activity in Canada, 1965–1984,” this Journal 20 (1987), 851–863; and Lambert Ronald D., Curtis James E., Kay Barry J. and Brown Steven D., “The Social Sources of Knowledge,” this Journal 21 (1988), 359–374.
4 Elkins and Blake, “Voting Research in Canada,” 325. Ronald Lambert has recently compiled a lengthy list of publications, theses, dissertations and scholarly papers based on the national elections studies of 1965 to 1984 (Department of Sociology, University of Waterloo).
5 See Miller William L., The Survey Method in the Social and Political Sciences: Achievements, Failures, Prospects (ondon: Frances Pinter, 1983), chap. 5. Secondary analyses of the NES datasets will be greatly facilitated by the recent appearance of Brombak's AnnaIndex to the Canadian National Election Studies, n.p., September 1990.
6 Miller, The Survey Method, 107. Probably the most influential of the pioneering Michigan studies was Campbell Angus, Converse Philip E., Miller Warren E. and Stokes Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960). The major Columbia studies were Lazarsfeld Paul F., Berelson Bernard and Gaudet Hazel, The People's Choice (3rd ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), and Berelson Bernard, Lazarsfeld Paul F. and McPhee William N., Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).
7 Meisel John and Van Loon Richard, “Canadian Attitudes to Election Expenses 1965–6,” in Committee on Election Expenses, Studies in Canadian Party Finance (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1966), 143, 23. The 1968 NES was also organized “with SRC studies very much in mind” and with the assistance of several scholars associated with the SRC. See Meisel John, “Values, Language and Politics in Canada,” in John Meisel, Working Papers on Canadian Politics (2nd enlarged ed.; Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1975), 181, n. 30.
8 Elkins and Blake, “Voting Research in Canada,” 317. Studies involving straightforward attempts to replicate, however, were not the norm and there was sufficient Canadian content in the 1965 questions, for example, to provide one of the principal investigators with material for a major study of regionalism in Canada. Schwartz Mildred A., Politics and Territory: The Sociology of Regional Persistence in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1974).
9 See Niemi Richard G. and Weisberg Herbert F., Controversies in Voting Behavior (2nd ed.; Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1984), chap. 21.
10 See, for example, Alford Robert R., Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963); Meisel John, “Religious Affiliation and Electoral Behaviour: A Case Study,” in Courtney John, ed., Voting in Canada (Toronto: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 144–161; Meisel John, ed., Papers on the 1962 Election (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964); and Regenstreif Peter, The Diefenbaker Interlude (Don Mills: Longman, 1965). Other key works from this period were Laponce Jean A., People vs. Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), and Schwartz Mildred A., Public Opinion and Canadian Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
11 Meisel, “Bizarre Aspects of a Vanishing Act,” in Meisel, Working Papers, 253.
12 Alford, Party and Society, x-xi.
13 See, for example, Hunter Alfred A., “On Class, Status, and Voting in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 7 (1982), 19–39, and Ornstein Michael D., Stevenson H. Michael and Williams A. Paul, “Region, Class and Political Culture in Canada,” this Journal 13 (1980), 227–271.
14 See, especially, Ogmundson Rick, “On the Measurement of Party Class Position: The Case of Canadian Federal Political Parties,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 12(1975), 565–576; “On the Use of Party Image Variables to Measure the Political Distinctiveness of a Class Vote: The Canadian Case,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 1 (1975), 169–177; “Party Class Images and the Class Vote in Canada,” American Sociological Review 40 (1975), 506–512; Ogmundson Rick and Ng M., “On the Inference of Voter Motivation: A Comparison of the Subjective Class Vote in Canada and the United Kingdom,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 7 (1982), 141–160. See also Myles John F., “Differences in the Canadian and American Class Vote: Fact or Pseudofact?” American Journal of Sociology 84 (1979), 1232–1237. Alford classified the Liberals as a party of the left and Social Credit as a party of the right.
15 Lambert Ronald D. and Hunter Alfred A., “Social Stratification, Voting Behaviour, and the Images of Canadian Federal Political Parties,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 16 (1979), 287–304. As part of the 1984 NES team, however, Lambert did, in fact, go on to revive this approach, but the scale measuring the parties' class positions was defined in terms of “for the lower classes” /“for the higher social classes” instead. Examining voting within provinces, he and his colleagues found more evidence of subjective class voting at the provincial level than the federal level. Lambert Ronald D., Curtis James E., Brown Steven D. and Kay Barry J., “Social Class, Left/Right Political Orientations, and Subjective Class Voting in Provincial and Federal Elections,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 24 (1987), 526–549.
16 Kay Barry J., “An Examination of Class and Left-Right Party Images in Canadian Voting,” this Journal 19(1977), 127–143. On the role of knowledge in class voting, see Erickson Bonnie, “Region, Knowledge, and Class Voting in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 6 (1981), 121–144.
17 Lambert et al., “Canadians' Beliefs About Differences between Social Classes.”
18 Ogmundson Rick, “Liberal Ideology and the Study of Voting Behaviour,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 17 (1980), 47. See also Ogmundson Rick, “Mass-Elite Linkages and Class Issues in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 13 (1976), 1–11, and “Two Modes of Interpretation of Survey Data: A Comment on Schreiber,” Social Forces 55 (03 1977), 809–811. Outside the voting literature, similar arguments have been offered by Brodie M. Janine and Jenson Jane, Crisis, Challenge and Change: Party and Class in Canada Revisited (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1988), and Horowitz Gad, “Towards a Democratic Class Struggle,” in Lloyd Trevor and Mcleod Jack, eds., Agenda 1970: Prospects for a Creative Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968).
19 Schreiber E. M., “Cultural Cleavages Between Occupational Categories: The Case of Canada,” Social Forces 55 (1976), 16–29, and “Class Awareness and Class Voting in Canada: A Reconsideration of the Ogmundson, Thesis,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 17 (1980), 37–44.
20 Pammett Jon H., “Class Voting and Class Consciousness in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 24 (1987), 269–289.
21 Zipp John F. and Smith Joel, “A Structural Analysis of Class Voting,” Social Forces 60 (1982), 738–759.
22 Brym Robert J., Gillespie Michael W. and Lenton Rhonda L., “Class Power, Class Mobilization, and Class Voting: The Canadian Case,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 14(1989), 25–44.
23 Pammett, “Class Voting and Class Consciousness.” On the link between NDP voting and union membership, especially membership in an NDP-affiliated union, see Archer Keith, “The Failure of the New Democratic Party: Unions, Unionists and Politics in Canada,” this Journal 18 (1985), 353–366.
24 Elkins and Blake, “Voting Research in Canada,” 322.
25 Jenson Jane, “Party Systems,” in Bellamy David J., Pammett Jon H. and Rowat Donald C., eds., The Provincial Political Systems: Comparative Essays (Toronto: Methuen, 1976).
26 Blake Donald E., “The Measurement of Regionalism in Canadian Voting Patterns,” this Journal 5 (1972), 54–81.
27 Blake Donald E., “Constituency Contexts and Canadian Elections: An Exploratory Study,” this Journal 11 (1978), 279–305.
28 LeDuc Lawrence, Clarke Harold, Jenson Jane and Pammett Jon, “A National Sample Design,” this Journal 7 (1974), 701–708.
29 Clarke Harold D., LeDuc Lawrence, Jenson Jane and Pammett Jon H., Political Choice in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979), chap. 2. At least in the case of the Prairie provinces, their conclusion seems overstated: whether they chose to think of their region as “the West” or “the Prairies,” more than half of Prairie residents did share a sense that their provinces formed a regional unit. The notion .of regions as “containers” derives from Simeon Richard and Elkins David, “Regional Political Cultures in Canada,” this Journal 7 (1974), 397–437.
30 Gidengil Elisabeth, “Class and Region in Canadian Voting: A Dependency Interpretation,” this Journal 22 (1989), 563–587.
31 Johnston J. Paul, “Some Methodological Issues in the Study of ‘Class Voting’: A Critique of Erickson's Analysis,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 6 (1981), 145–156.
32 Meisel, “Religious Affiliation.”
33 Regenstreif, The Diefenbaker Interlude.
34 John Meisel, “Bizarre Aspects of a Vanishing Act: The Religious Cleavage and Voting in Canada,” in Meisel, Working Papers, 253–84.
35 McDonald examined the influence of similar factors in her study of religion and the vote in Ontario in the same election. She also found that while measures of social involvement did have some effect, the differences between Catholics and Protestants in voting preferences were no greater among those who were the most committed to their respective group (McDonald Lynn, “Religion and Voting: A Study of the 1968 Canadian Federal Election in Ontario,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 6 , 129–144).
36 Irvine William P., “Explaining the Religious Basis of the Canadian Partisan Identity: Success on the Third Try,” this Journal 7 (1974), 560–563.
37 See, for example, Jane Jenson, “Party Loyalty in Canada: The Question of Party Identification,” this Journal 8 (1975), 543–53. For some hypotheses regarding the adoption of parental partisanships, see Michael D. Martinez, “Intergenerational Transfer of Canadian Partisanships,” this Journal 17 (1984), 133–43.
38 Johnston Richard, “The Reproduction of the Religious Cleavage in Canadian Elections,” this Journal 18 (1985), 99–113.
39 McDonald, “Religion and Voting.”
40 Meisel, “Bizarre Aspects of a Vanishing Act.”
41 Lambert et al., “Canadians' Beliefs about Differences between Social Classes.”
42 Elkins and Blake, “Voting Research in Canada,” 316, emphasis added.
43 The contact-breeds-consensus theory holds that the more people interact with their social group and/or the more closely they self-consciously identify with the group, the more likely they are to share the dominant partisanship of that group. The breakage effect refers to the notion that when the voter's primary groups are not politically homogeneous, the partisan climate of opinion in the community at large will “break through.” Blake used both of these notions in “Constituency Contexts.”
44 Meisel, “Party Images in Canada: A Report on Work in Progress,” in Meisel, Working Papers, 67.
45 Jenson, “Party Loyalty in Canada,” and Elkins David J., “Party Identification: A Conceptual Analysis,” this Journal 11 (1978), 419–435.
46 Sniderman Paul M., Forbes H. D. and Melzer Ian, “Party Loyalty and Electoral Volatility: A Study of the Canadian Party System,” this Journal 7 (1974), 268–288.
47 See MacDermid R. H., “The Recall of Past Partisanship: Feeble Memories or Frail Concepts?” this Journal 22 (1989), 363–375.
48 LeDuc Lawrence, Clarke Harold D., Jenson Jane and Pammett Jon H., “Partisan Instability in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984), 470–484. The implications of these findings are developed in LeDuc Lawrence, “Canada: The Politics of Stable Dealignment,” in Dalton Russell J., Flanagan Scott C. and Beck Paul Allen, eds., Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).
49 Clarke Harold D., Jenson Jane, LeDuc Lawrence and Pammett Jon H., Absent Mandate: The Politics of Discontent in Canada (1st ed.; Toronto: Gage, 1984), 56.
50 See Wiseman, “The Use, Misuse, and Abuse.”
51 Johnston's experiments with question wording suggest that the number of unstable identifiers in Canada may have been inflated by measurement error because the standard form of the question is likely to push respondents to express an attachment that they do not really feel by not explicitly offering the response alternative of “none.” See Johnston Richard, “The Equivalence of forty Identification Measures: A National Survey Experiment,”paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington, D.C., 1988. Since “flexible” partisans include those with no identification, however, the basic conclusions in Political Choice would be unaffected.
52 Blake Donald E., “The Consistency of Inconsistency: Party Identification in Federal and Provincial Politics,” this Journal 15 (1982), 691–710.
53 Political Choice, chap. 5. In the following chapter, Clarke and his colleagues show that many voters articulated quite independent and often very different images of federal and provincial parties bearing the same name. Uslaner has recently affirmed the importance of Canadians' “two political worlds” for understanding split identification (Uslaner Eric M., “Splitting Image: Partisan Affiliations in Canada's ‘Two Political Worlds,’” American Journal of Political Science 34 , 961–981).
54 Clarke Harold D. and Stewart Marianne C., “Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change in Federal States: The Case of Canada,” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987), 383–407.
55 Brym and his colleagues, however, have dismissed the criterion of proportion of variance explained as a “methodological fetish.” See “Class Power, Class Mobilization, and Class Voting,” 31–32. It should be noted that Clarke et al. did not examine any interactive effects among the various social background characteristics.
56 Their analysis of voting in the 1979 and 1980 elections may be found in the first edition of Absent Mandate. Voting in the 1984 and 1988 elections is analyzed in Clarke Harold D., Jenson Jane, LeDuc Lawrence and Pammett Jon H., Absent Mandate: Interpreting Change in Canadian Elections (2nd ed.; Toronto: Gage, 1991). For further discussion of candidate effects, see Irvine William P., “Does the Candidate Make a Difference? The Macro-Politics and Micro-Politics of Getting Elected,” this Journal 15 (1982), 755–782.
57 John Meisel, “Values, Language and Politics in Canada,” in Meisel, Working Papers, 174. Wiseman has been particularly critical of Political Choice in Canada, characterizing the concluding statement as a mere tautology. See “The Use, Misuse, and Abuse.”
58 LeDuc Lawrence, “On Abusing the National Election Studies,” unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto, 12. LeDuc offers detailed responses to a number of Wiseman's criticisms in this paper.
59 Archer Keith, “A Simultaneous Equation Model of Canadian Voting Behaviour,” this Journal 20(1987), 553–572. Brown Steven D., Lambert Ronald D., Kay Barry J. and Curtis James E., “The 1984 Election: Explaining the Vote,”paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association,Winnipeg, 1986. For a useful discussion of some of the problems with non-recursive models, see Asher Herbert B., “Voting Behaviour Research in the 1980s: An Examination of Some Old and New Problem Areas,” in Finifter Ada, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1983), 342–349.
60 The inclusion of “candidate” in Archer's Figure 1 is obviously an error. In Brown et al.'s model, the leader evaluations are explicitly comparative evaluations.
61 The Brown model also included gender, interest and the respondent's direct experience with unemployment in the previous five years.
62 Brown and his colleagues included variables for all three leaders in recognition of the fact that a respondent's evaluation of a leader is a comparative judgment that will be affected by the perceived attributes of the other leaders. The Brown model also included perceptions of the leaders' comparative ability to represent the respondent's own region and to embody the “time for a change” sentiment that figured in the 1984 election.
63 On this point, see Asher, “Voting Research in the 1980s,” 348. Adequate representation of the causal processes at work calls for dynamic equations (and therefore panel data) that incorporate time-lagged variables.
64 Tajfel Henri, Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 10. See also Turner John C., Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987).
65 Converse Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter David, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: John Wiley, 1964), 211.
66 Sniderman Paul M., Fletcher Joseph F., Russell Peter H. and Tetlock Philip E., “Political Culture and the Problem of Double Standards: Mass and Elite Attitudes Toward Language Rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” this Journal 22 (1989), 259–284. The 1988 NES mailback questionnaire does tap a number of values.
67 Kinder Donald R., “Diversity and Complexity in American Public Opinion,” in Finifter Ada, ed., Political Science.
68 See Archer Keith and Johnston Marquis, “Inflation, Unemployment and Canadian Federal Voting Behaviour,” this Journal 21 (1988), 569–584, and Clarke Harold D. and Kornberg Allan, “Support for the Canadian Federal Progressive Conservative Party since 1988: The Impact of Economic Evaluations and Economic Issues,” this Journal 25 (1992), 29–53. While these studies use individual-level data, much of the research has employed aggregate data. See, for example, Happy J. R., “Voter Sensitivity to Economic Conditions: A Canadian-American Comparison,” Comparative Politics 19 (1986), 45–56, and “Economic Performance and Retrospective Voting in Canadian Federal Elections,” this Journal 22 (1989), 377–387; Monroe Kristen and Erickson Lynda, “The Economy and Political Support: The Case of Canada,” Journal of Politics 48 (1986), 629–640; Erickson Lynda, “CCF-NDP Popularity and the Economy,” this Journal 21 (1988), 96–116; Clarke Harold D. and Zuk Gary, “The Politics of Party Popularity: Canada 1974–79,” Comparative Politics 19 (1987), 229–316; and Carmichael Calum M., “Economic Conditions and the Popularity of the Incumbent Party in Canada,” this Journal 23 (1990), 713–726.
69 See Feldman Stanley, “Economic Self-interest and Political Behaviour,” American Journal of Political Science 26 (1982), 446–466.
70 Clarke and Stewart, “Partisan Inconsistency and Partisan Change”; Fiorina Morris P., Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981); and Stevenson H. Michael, “Ideology and Unstable Party Identification in Canada: Limited Rationality in a Brokerage Party System,” this Journal 20 (1987), 813–850.
71 Jenson Jane, “Party Strategy and Party Identification: Some Patterns of Partisan Allegiance,” this Journal 9 (1976), 27–48. See also Jenson, “Party Loyalty in Canada.”
72 Goldberg Arthur S., “Social Determinism and Rationality as Bases of Party Identification,” American Political Science Review 63 (1969), 5–25.
73 Price Vincent, “Social Identification and Public Opinion: Effects of Communicating Group Conflict,” Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (1989), 197–224. On the role of group affect in structuring voters' thinking about issues, see Sniderman Paul M., Brady Richard A. and Tetlock Philip E., Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
74 A study that did take the campaign seriously was Black Jerome H., “Revisiting the Effects of Canvassing on Voting Behaviour,” this Journal 17 (1984), 351–374. Findings from the 1988 NES will be reported extensively in Johnston Richard, Blais André, Brady Henry and Crête Jean, Letting the People Decide (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, forthcoming). See also their chapter “Free Trade and the Dynamics of the 1988 Election,” in Wearing Joseph, ed., The Ballot and Its Message: Voting in Canada (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1991); Johnston Richard, Blais André, Brady Henry E. and Crête Jean, “Free Trade in Canadian Elections: Issue Evolution in the Long and the Short Run,”paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,San Francisco, 1990; and Blais André, Johnston Richard, Brady Henry E. and Crête Jean, “The Dynamics of Horse Race Expectations in the 1988 Canadian Election,”paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association,Victoria, 1990. For an earlier study of strategic voting, see Black Jerome H., “The Multicandidate Calculus of Voting: Application to Canadian Federal Elections,” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978), 609–638.
75 The discrepancies between reported and actual behaviour form the centrepiece of Wiseman's critique of the NES in “The Use, Misuse, and Abuse.” LeDuc maintains that Wiseman has exaggerated the extent of the discrepancies. See LeDuc, “On Abusing the National Election Studies.” While the problems of faulty recall were certainly no cause for complacency, experience with the 1974–1979–1980 NES panel suggests that we should not exaggerate the problem of possible unreliability. With panel data, we no longer have to rely on fallible memories to compare reported vote at successive elections. The NES panel confirmed the portrait of an electorate with flexible attachments to parties and considerable potential for volatility that emerged from the 1974 cross-section.
76 Meisel and Van Loon, “Canadian Attitudes to Election Expenses 1965–6,” 40.
77 Ibid., 143.
78 See de Leeuw Edith D. and van der Zouwen Johannes, “Data Quality in Telephone and Face to Face Surveys: A Comparative Meta-Analysis,” in Robert M. Groves, Paul P. Blemes, Lars E. Lyndberg, James T. Massey, William L. Nichells II and Joseph Waksberg, Telephone Survey Methodology (New York: John Wiley, 1988), 283–300.
79 Dennis Trewin and Geoff Lee, “International Comparisons of Telephone Coverage,” in Ibid., 9–24. Noncoverage at the province level ranges from 2 to 6 per cent.
80 Meisel and Van Loon, “Canadian Attitudes to Election Expenses,” 37.
81 For a discussion of some of the pitfalls in the analysis of rolling cross-section data, see Rosenstone Steven and Feldman Stanley, “Design, Implementation, and Analysis of the Rolling Cross-Section and Event Monitoring Components of the 1984 National Election Study,” Memo to the Board of Overseers and 1984 National Election Study Planning Committee, October 19, 1983.
82 Elkins and Blake, “Voting Research in Canada,” 313.
83 Black Jerome H., “Immigrant Political Adaptation in Canada: Some Tentative Findings,” this Journal 15 (1982), 3–27.
84 Black Jerome H. and McGlen Nancy E., “Male-Female Political Involvement Differentials in Canada, 1965–1974,” this Journal 12 (1979), 471–497, and Kay et al., “Gender and Political Activity.” An exception is Wearing Peter and Wearing Joseph, “Does Gender Make a Difference in Voting Behaviour?” in Wearing , ed., The Ballot and Its Message.
85 Conover Pamela Johnston, “Feminists and the Gender Gap,” Journal of Politics 50 (1988), 985–1010. Conover cites an extensive list of works on the gender gap.
86 Abramson Paul R., “The Decline of Over-Time Comparability in the National Election Studies,” Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (1990), 177–190.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.