Anzia, Sarah F. and Moe, Terry M. 2016. Polarization and Policy: The Politics of Public-Sector Pensions. Legislative Studies Quarterly,
Hall, Peter A. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer Pierson, Paul and Kraft, Jonas D. 2016. Pablo Beramendi, Silja Häusermann, Herbert Kitschelt, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds), 2015,The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, Cambridge University PressPablo Beramendi, Silja Häusermann, Herbert Kitschelt, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds), 2015,The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, Cambridge University PressPablo Beramendi, Silja Häusermann, Herbert Kitschelt, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds), 2015,The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, Cambridge University Press. Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 383.
Hatemi, Peter K. and McDermott, Rose 2016. Give Me Attitudes. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 331.
Kalla, Joshua L. and Broockman, David E. 2016. Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 3, p. 545.
Patty, John W. 2016. Signaling through Obstruction. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 1, p. 175.
Berry, Michael J. Laird, Frank N. and Stefes, Christoph H. 2015. Driving energy: the enactment and ambitiousness of state renewable energy policy. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 35, Issue. 02, p. 297.
Desmarais, Bruce A. La Raja, Raymond J. and Kowal, Michael S. 2015. The Fates of Challengers in U.S. House Elections: The Role of Extended Party Networks in Supporting Candidates and Shaping Electoral Outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 1, p. 194.
Enos, Ryan D. and Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Campaign Perceptions of Electoral Closeness: Uncertainty, Fear and Over-Confidence. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Grose, Christian R. Malhotra, Neil and Parks Van Houweling, Robert 2015. Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 724.
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander and Skocpol, Theda 2015. Asymmetric Interest Group Mobilization and Party Coalitions in U.S. Tax Politics. Studies in American Political Development, Vol. 29, Issue. 02, p. 235.
Kölln, Ann-Kristin 2015. The value of political parties to representative democracy. European Political Science Review, Vol. 7, Issue. 04, p. 593.
Nyhan, Brendan and Montgomery, Jacob M. 2015. Connecting the Candidates: Consultant Networks and the Diffusion of Campaign Strategy in American Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 2, p. 292.
Sabl, Andrew 2015. The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 13, Issue. 02, p. 345.
Burden, Barry C. Jones, Bradley M. and Kang, Michael S. 2014. Sore Loser Laws and Congressional Polarization. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, Issue. 3, p. 299.
Galvin, Daniel J. 2014. Presidents as Agents of Change. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 95.
Kreiss, Daniel 2014. The Virtues of Participation without Power: Campaigns, Party Networks, and the Ends of Politics. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 55, Issue. 3, p. 537.
Mudge, Stephanie L. and Chen, Anthony S. 2014. Political Parties and the Sociological Imagination: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 40, Issue. 1, p. 305.
Baylor, Christopher A. 2013. First to the Party: The Group Origins of the Partisan Transformation on Civil Rights, 1940–1960. Studies in American Political Development, Vol. 27, Issue. 02, p. 111.
Crowder-Meyer, Melody 2013. Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women's Representation. Politics & Gender, Vol. 9, Issue. 04, p. 390.
Dowdle, Andrew Limbocker, Scott Yang, Song Sebold, Karen and Stewart, Patrick A. 2013. The Invisible Hands of Political Parties in Presidential Elections.
We propose a theory of political parties in which interest groups and activists are the key actors, and coalitions of groups develop common agendas and screen candidates for party nominations based on loyalty to their agendas. This theoretical stance contrasts with currently dominant theories, which view parties as controlled by election-minded politicians. The difference is normatively important because parties dominated by interest groups and activists are less responsive to voter preferences, even to the point of taking advantage of lapses in voter attention to politics. Our view is consistent with evidence from the formation of national parties in the 1790s, party position change on civil rights and abortion, patterns of polarization in Congress, policy design and nominations for state legislatures, Congress, and the presidency.
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.
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.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.