Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T19:41:25.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Hidden Partisanship and Crossover Voting in Semi-Closed Primaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2023

Matthew P. Thornburg Open the ORCID record for Matthew P. Thornburg [Opens in a new window]
Matthew P. Thornburg*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Political Science, and Philosophy, University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA
*
Email: matthewth@usca.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among US states with party registration, many allow the unaffiliated to choose either the Democratic or Republican primary. States with these semi-closed rules thus provide an option to voters with greater choice than registering with a single political party. Using the synthetic control method, I find that the introduction of semi-closed primaries is associated with growth in unaffiliated registration. However, the likelihood of unaffiliated registration is not even across the electorate in semi-closed states. I show that it is most common where a voter’s party is not competitive and the access unaffiliated registration provides to the strong party’s primary is valuable. Consistent with this instrumental motive, unaffiliated voters in semi-closed states use their freedom of choice to vote in the primary of the stronger party in the electorate. This leads to significant crossover voting among unaffiliated voters who do not identify with that party such as Democrats in red states or Republicans in blue states. These findings show the unintended consequences of electoral institutions and find primary crossover voting is more common under some circumstances than others.

Keywords

primary electionselection rulesvoting behaviorelectionsparty identificationparty registration

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 187 - 217
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press and State Politics & Policy Quarterly

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (490): 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2015. “Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, and Gardeazabal, Javier. 2003. “The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country.” American Economic Review 93 (1): 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdelal, Rawi, Herrera, Yoshiko M., Johnston, Alastair Iain, and McDermott, Rose. 2006. “Identity as a variable.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (4): 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1997. “Analysis of Crossover and Strategic Voting.” Technical report. Pasadena CA: California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2002. “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” In Voting at the Political Fault Line: California’s Experiment with the Blanket Primary, eds. Cain, Bruce and Gerber, Elisabeth 107–123. Oakland CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. “Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis 20 (4): 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrington, Theodore S., and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. “Party Registration Choices as a Function of the Geographic Distribution of Partisanship: A Model of ‘Hidden Partisanship’ and an Illustrative Test.” Political Geography 18 (2): 173–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Charles G., and Buchanan, William. 1966. “Reliable and Unreliable Respondents: Party Registration and Prestige Pressure.” Western Political Quarterly 19 (1): 37–43.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C., and Greene, Steven. 2000. “Party Attachments and State Election Laws.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., and Jones, Philip Edward. 2009. “Strategic Voting in the US.” In Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Blais, André, and Grofman, Bernie 47–64. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Caroline, and Gimpel, James G.. 2019. “Political Implications of Residential Mobility and Stasis on the Partisan Balance of Locales.” Political Geography 71: 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2020. Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Koch, Julianna. 2013. “Public Opinion in the US States: 1956 to 2010.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13 (3): 349–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezra, Marni. 2001. “A Reexamination of Congressional Primary Turnout.” American Politics Research 29 (1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Scarrow, Howard A.. 1985. “Party Identification and Party Enrollment: The Difference and the Consequences.” The Journal of Politics 47 (2): 620–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Little, Thomas C.. 1997. “Poststratification into Many Categories Using Hierarchical Logistic Regression.” Survey Methodology 23 (2): 127–36.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Biggers, Daniel R., and Hendry, David J.. 2017. “Why Don’t People Vote in US Primary Elections? Assessing Theoretical Explanations for Reduced Participation.” Electoral Studies 45: 119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., and Washington, Ebonya. 2009. “Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment.” Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Morton, Rebecca B.. 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 14 (2): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Christopher, and Grofman, Bernhard. 1998. “Turnout in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Primary and General Elections in the South, 1922–90: A Rational Choice Model of the Effects of Short-Run and Long-Run Electoral Competition on Relative Turnout.” Public Choice 94 (3–4): 407–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J. 2009. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J. 2015. “Institution of Nomination and the Policy Ideology of Primary Electorates.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 461–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 2015. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1977. “Voting Turnout in State Gubernatorial Primaries.” Western Political Quarterly 30 (2): 236–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Morton, Rebecca. 2001. “Congressional Primaries.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, eds. Galderisi, Peter F., Ezra, Marni, and Lyons, Michael. 116–31. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kenney, Patrick. 1983. “Explaining Turnout in Gubernatorial Primaries.” American Politics Research 11 (3): 315–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Patrick. 1986. “Explaining Primary Turnout: The Senatorial Case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (1): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Patrick, and Rice, Tom W.. 1986. “The Effect of Contextual Forces on Turnout in Congressional Primaries.” Social Science Quarterly 67 (2): 329.Google Scholar
Key, Valdimer O. 1949. Southern Politics. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2013. “Other Scholars’ Competitiveness Measures.” https://doi.org/ 10.7910/DVN/QSDYLH.Google Scholar
Madden, Richard L. 1986. “Parties Study Primary Ruling.” New York Times.Google Scholar
Martin, Gregory J., and Webster, Steven W.. 2020. “Does Residential Sorting Explain Geographic Polarization?” Political Science Research and Methods 8 (2): 215–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, Eric, and Krimm, Daniel. 2009. “Party Registration and the Geography of Party Polarization.” Polity 41 (3): 345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, Eric, Masket, Seth, Shor, Boris, Rogers, Steven, and McCarty, Nolan. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehouse, Sarah M., and Jewell, Malcolm E.. 2005. “The Future of Political Parties in the States.” Technical report, The Counsel of State Governments.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1989. “Explaining Cross-State Variation in Independent Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (2): 516–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2018. “The Nature of Crossover Voters.” In Routledge Handbook of Primary Elections, eds. Boatright, Robert G. 105. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Wendland, Jay. 2016. “Open Versus Closed Primaries and the Ideological Composition of Presidential Primary Electorates.” Electoral Studies 42: 229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian, and Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2018. “CCES Common Content, 2018.” https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910/DVN/ZSBZ7KGoogle Scholar
Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2007. “Defining American Identity in the Twenty-First Century: How Much “There” is There?” The Journal of Politics 69 (3): 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, Kennon M., and Bettencourt, B. Ann. 2002. “Psychological Need-Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being Within Social Groups.” British Journal of Social Psychology 41 (1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, Andrew J. 2013. “Of Primary Importance: American Primary Elections 1945–2012.” PhD thesis. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sussell, Jesse. 2013. “New Support for the Big Sort Hypothesis: An Assessment of Partisan Geographic Sorting in California, 1992–2010.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 768–73.Google Scholar
Thornburg, Matthew P. 2014. “Party Registration and Party Self-Identification: Exploring the Role of Electoral Institutions in Attitudes and Behaviors.” Electoral Studies 36: 137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, Matthew P. 2018. “Sooner or Later: Oklahoma Party Registration and Delayed Realignment.” Oklahoma Politics 28: 1–26.Google Scholar
Thornburg, Matthew P. 2019. “Party Registration Closing Date and Primary Turnout Among Democrats and Republicans.” New England Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 160–96.Google Scholar
Thornburg, Matthew P. 2022. “Replication Data for: The Dynamics of Hidden Partisanship and Crossover Voting in Semi-Closed Primaries.” https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/M3NXWH, UNC Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:FGkQODMZ4UvBLW84hQhiUw== [fileUNF].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, Alan. 2002. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, Russell C. 2015. “The Partisan Geographies of Sincere Crossover Voting Behavior: Evidence from North Carolina.” The Professional Geographer 67 (2): 145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wekkin, Gary D. 1991. “Why Crossover Voters are not “Mischievous Voters” the Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis.” American Politics Quarterly 19 (2): 229–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Thornburg supplementary material

Thornburg supplementary material

Download Thornburg supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 235.4 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Thornburg Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/M3NXWH
Link