Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:16:35.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Peter F. Nardulli
Peter F. Nardulli
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The realignment perspective has exerted an enormous amount of influence on thinking about American politics, but recently it has fallen into disfavor. As a theory of political change, this dissatisfaction is warranted. However, in rejecting the realignment perspective, scholars risk losing a valuable concept, the notion of a critical realignment. My thesis is that, properly defined, the concept of a critical realignment can be a powerful tool in the study of electoral behavior and an important component of a broader theory of political change. This thesis derives from an analysis of presidential elections between 1828 and 1984. This analysis provides dramatic evidence for the proposition that critical realignments are important electoral phenomena. The evidence is equally clear, however, that critical realignments are subnational phenomena that vary considerably in form, not the majestic national movements some believed them to be. The analyses reported here reveal broadly based electoral eruptions of 40 to 50 points that endure for decades.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 10 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

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

Aldenderfer, Mark S., and Blashfield, Roger K.. 1984. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel. 1988. “The Return to the State.” American Political Science Review 82:853–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., and Tiao, G. C.. 1975. “Intervention Analysis with Applications to Economic and Environmental Problems.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 70:70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W. 1988. Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chubb, John E., and Peterson, Paul E.. 1985. The New Direction in American Politics. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Clubb, Jerome M., Flanigan, William H., and Zingale, Nancy H.. 1990. Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1966. “The Concept of a Normal Vote.” In Elections and the Political Order, eds. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. New York: John Wiley and Son.Google Scholar
Fenton, John H. 1957. Politics in the Border States. New Orleans: Hauser Press.Google Scholar
Fenton, John H. 1966. Midwest Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Gottman, John. 1984. Time-Series Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heale, M. J. 1977. The Making of American Politics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1993. “Citizens, Contexts, and Politics.” In Political Science: the State of the Discipline. Second Edition, ed. Finifter, Ada. Washington, D.C.: The American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleppner, Paul. 1987. Change and Continuity in Eledoral Politics, 1893–1928. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Lockard, Duane. 1959. New England State Politics. Chicago: Henry Regnery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorr, Maurice. 1987. Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists. San Francisco: Josey Bass.Google Scholar
McCleary, Richard, and Hay, Richard A., Jr. 1980. Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
McDowall, David, McCleary, Richard, Meidinger, Erroll E., and Hay, Richard A. Jr., 1980. Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardulli, Peter F. 1989. “Geo-Political Cleavages, Conflict, and the American States.” In Diversity, Conflkt, and State Politics: Regionalism in Illinois, ed. Nardulli, Peter F.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Nardulli, Peter F. 1994. “A Normal Vote Approach to the Study of Electoral Change: Presidential Elections, 1828–1984.” Political Behavior 16:467–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1956. “United States: The Functional Approach to Party Government.” In Modern Political Parties: Approaches to Comparative Politics, ed. Neumann, Sigmund. Chicago: University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Shafer, Byron E. 1991. “The Notion of an Electoral Order: The Structure of Electoral Politics at the Ascension of George Bush.” In The End of Realignment?: Interpreting American Electoral Eras, ed. Shafer, Byron E.. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Shallope, Robert E. 1990. The Roots of Democracy American Thought and Culture, 1760–1860. Boston: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
Silbey, Joel H. 1991. The American Political Nation, 1838–1893. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1932. The Significance of Sections in American History. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar