Political scientists have assumed that dividing the electorate into issue publics, on the basis of salient issues, leads to a better understanding of the relationships between issues and both candidate evaluations and electoral choice. This portrait accords nicely with the description offered by pluralists of the operation of the electoral arena. Our data suggest that, at least in 1972, the portrait is flawed. Using a variety of multivariate tech niques we show that salience fails to sharpen the impact of issues and that electoral choice was, fundamentally, a question of candidate images.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, J. and C. Cnudde (1975) "Probing the bounds of conventional wisdom: a comparison of regression, probit, and discriminant analysis."Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.19 (August): 571-608.
2.
Blalock, H.M. (1967) "Causal inference, closed populations, and measures of association."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.61 (March): 130-136.
3.
Brody, R. and B. Page (1972) "Comment: the assessment of policy voting."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.66 (June): 450-458.
4.
Converse, E. (1964) "The nature of belief systems in mass publics," in D. E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent.New York: Free Press.
5.
Dahl, R. (1956) A Preface to Democratic TheoryChicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
6.
Downs, A. ( 1957) An Economic Theory of DemocracyNew York: Harper & Row.
7.
Fishbein, M. and F. Coombs (1971) "Basis for decision: an attitudinal approach toward an understanding of voting behavior."Prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association .
8.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and M.E. Jones (1974) "Issue publics and the electoral system: the role of issues in electoral change," pp. 537-555 in A. R. Wilcox (ed.) Public Opinion and Political Attitudes.New York: John Wiley.
9.
Kort, F. (1973) "Regression analysis and discriminant analysis."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.67 (June): 555-559.
10.
Kovenock, D. et al. (1973) Explaining the Vote: Presidential Choices in the Nation and the States, 1968Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Institute for Research in the Social Sciences .
11.
McClure, R. and T. Patterson (1974) "Issue voting and voter rationality: a panel study."Prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
12.
Margolis, M. (1977) "From confusion to confusion: issues and the American voter (1956-1972)."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.71 (March): 31-43.
13.
Miller, A. et al. (1976) "A majority party in disarray: policy polarization in the 1972 election."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 70 (September): 753-778.
14.
Miller, W. and T. Levitin (1977) Leadership and ChangeCambridge : Winthrop.
15.
——— (1976) Leadership and Change: Presidential Elections From 1952 to 1976Cambridge : Winthrop .
16.
Pierce, J. and D. Rose (1974) "Nonattitudes and American public opinion."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 68 (June): 626-649.
17.
Repass, D. (1976) "Comment: political methodologies in disarray: some alternative interpretations of the 1972 election."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.70 (September): 814-831.
18.
——— (1971) "Issue salience and party choice."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.65 (June): 389-400.
19.
Reynolds, H. (1974) "Rationality and attitudes toward political parties and candidates."J. of Politics36 (November): 983-1005.
20.
Riker, W. and P. Ordeshook (1973) An Introduction to Positive Political TheoryEnglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
21.
Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign PeopleNew York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
22.
Weisberg, H. and J. Rusk (1970) "Dimensions of candidate evaluation."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.64 (December): 1167-1185.
