¹ Forthal, Sonya, Cogwheels of Democracy: A Study of the Precinct Captain (New York: William-Frederick Press, 1946)Google Scholar; Gosnell, Harold F., Machine Politics: Chicago Model (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937)Google Scholar; Kent, Frank R., The Great Game of Politics (New York: Doubleday Doran, 1923)Google Scholar; Salter, J. T., Boss Rule: Portraits in City Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935)Google Scholar.

² Wilson, James Q., The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Hirshfield, Robert S., Swanson, Bert E., and Blank, Blanche D., “A Profile of Political Activists in Manhattan,” Western Political Quarterly, 15 (09, 1962), 489–506Google Scholar; Carney, Francis, The Rise of the Democratic Clubs in California, Eagleton Foundation Case Studies in Practical Politics (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1958)Google Scholar.

³ Greenstein, Fred I., The American Party System and the American People (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 39–41Google Scholar.

⁴ Wilson, op. cit., pp. 2–16.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 62–63.

⁶ Ibid., p. 5.

⁷ Eldersveld, Samuel J., Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), pp. 277–292Google Scholar.

⁸ Carney, op. cit.; Blaisdell, Donald C., The Riverside Democrats, Eagleton Institute Cases in Practical Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁹ Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q., “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 6 (09, 1961), 134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Schlesinger, Joseph A., “Political Party Organization,” in March, James G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), p. 768Google Scholar.

¹¹ For a discussion of party functions, see, for example, McDonald, Neil A., The Study of Political Parties (New York: Random House, 1955), pp. 22–26Google Scholar.

¹² Schlesinger, loc. cit., pp. 767–769, 774–786.

¹³ Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E., The Voter Decides (Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson and Company, 1954), pp. 88–143Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See, for example, Levin, Murray B. and Eden, Murray, “Political Strategy for the Alienated Voter,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (Spring, 1962), 47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Salisbury, Robert H., “The Urban Party Organization Member,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Winter, 1965–1966), 553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Althoff, Phillip and Patterson, Samuel C., “Political Activism in a Rural County,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10 (February, 1966), p. 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Bowman, Lewis and Boynton, G. R., “Recruitment Patterns Among Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in Selected Locales,” this Review, 60 (09, 1966), 670–71Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 674.

¹⁹ Eldersveld, op. cit., pp. 54, 58.

²⁰ Ibid., pp. 59–72.

²¹ Wilson, op. cit., pp. 4–5.

²² The Montgomery County leaders were personally interviewed; the Knox County leaders responded to the same research instrument administered as mail questionnaires. Two problems generally exist in the use of mail questionnaires, these being the obtaining of an adequate response rate and the obtaining of a representative sample. The response rate for the Knox County leaders was sufficient and examination of the pattern of returned questionnaires indicated that representativeness in terms of party affiliation, socio-economic characteristics, and residential patterns was obtained.

²³ The statistical measure of association used is Kendall's tau. For a discussion of tau, see Kendall, M. G., Rank Correlation Methods (London: Charles Griffin and Company, 1955)Google Scholar. In the analysis of social characteristics, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational faiths are classified as high-status Protestant religions; all other Protestant religions are classified as low-status.

²⁴ Social contacts consist of positive responses to desire to be close to people doing important things, friendship for a candidate, community recognition, enjoyment of campaign excitement, and enjoyment of social contacts. Other personal includes desire to build a personal position in politics, business contacts, and politics as a part of the respondent's way of life. Ideological consists of desire to influence governmental policy, and other impersonal consists of desire to fulfill civic responsibility and attachment to one's political party. Ideological and other impersonal satisfactions are roughly equivalent with Clark and Wilson's purposive category and social contacts with the solidary category. Other impersonal is loosely equivalent to material rewards, although building a personal position in politics undoubtedly includes ego-satisfying rewards as well as material rewards to be derived from the eventually attained political position.

²⁵ Ranney, Austin, Illinois Politics (New York: New York University Press, prepared under the auspices of the Citizenship Clearing House, 1960), pp. 33–34Google Scholar; Sorauf, Frank J., “State Patronage in a Rural County,” this Review, 50 (December, 1956), 1046–1056Google Scholar.

²⁶ A recent study indicates that a very large proportion of both parties' candidates for the Maryland legislature in 1966 had previously served as precinct chairmen. Allen J. Cigler, unpublished research, University of Maryland, 1967.

²⁷ Eldersveld, op. cit., p. 278.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 287.

²⁹ The most colorful statement along these lines (“reformers only morning glories”) is contained in Riordon, William L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1963), pp. 17–20Google Scholar.

³⁰ Eldersveld, op. cit., pp. 281–283.

³¹ Schlesinger, op. cit., pp. 769–772.

³² Sorauf, Frank J., Political Parties in the American System (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964), pp. 85, 151Google Scholar.

³³ Wilson, op. cit., p. 4.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 5.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 171.