Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

More than a Dime's Worth: Using State Party Platforms to Assess the Degree of American Party Polarization

  • Daniel J. Coffey (a1)

How polarized are American political parties? Recently, Kidd used an automated content analysis program to demonstrate that American party platforms reveal only minor policy differences. In contrast to his conclusions, this analysis produces three main findings. First, at the state level, state party platforms reveal considerable ideological differences between the parties. Second, differences in state public opinion do not account for these differences; rather, they are more closely correlated with activist opinions and increases in state party competition. Finally, the conflict is not simply ideological but applies to specific issues in the platforms. As such, American state parties are highly polarized on different measures. Automated content analysis programs clearly represent an important methodological advance in coding political texts, but the results here call attention to the importance of policy and agenda content in party platforms. Moreover, studies of American politics, particularly research focusing on parties and ideological polarization, need to take into account the diversity of agendas that is inherent in a federal party system.

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.

Alan I. Abramowitz , and Kyle L. Saunders . 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?Journal of Politics 70: 542–55.

John H. Aldrich , and James S. Coleman Battista . 2002. “Conditional Party Government in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 164–72.

Duncan Black . 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 56: 2334.

Daniel Coffey . 2005. “Measuring Gubernatorial Ideology: A Content Analysis of State of the State Speeches.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5: 88103.

Kimberly H. Conger 2010. “Party Platforms and Party Coalitions: The Christian Right and State-Level Republicans.” Party Politics 16: 651–68.

Robert S. Erikson , Gerald C. Wright , and John McIver . 2007. “Measuring the Public' Ideological Preferences in the 50 States: Survey Responses versus Roll Call Data.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 141–51.

Girish J. Gulati 2004. “Revisiting the Link between Electoral Competition and Policy Extremism in the U.S. Congress.” American Politics Research 32: 495520.

Hans-Dieter Klingemann , Richard I. Hofferbert , and Ian Budge . 1994. Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Michael Laver , and John Garry . 2000. “Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 619–34.

Geoffrey Layman , and Thomas Carsey . 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 786802.

David Lublin , and D. Stephen Voss . 2003. “The Missing Middle: Why Median-Voter Theory Can't Save Democrats from Singing the Boll-Weevil Blues.” Journal of Politics 65: 227–37.

John R. Petrocik 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–50.

Douglas Usher , 2000. “Strategy, Rules, and Participation: Issue Activists in Republican National Convention Delegations, 1976–1996.” Political Research Quarterly 53: 887903.

Micah Weinberg . 2010. “Measuring Governors' Political Orientations Using Words as Data.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10: 96109.

Recommend this journal

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

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 28 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 137 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.