Download Exercise 8

(EXERCISE 8)
THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
ON POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION
CONTROLLING FOR EDUCATION
Roger C. Lowery
PLS 401, Senior Seminar
Department of Public & International Affairs
UNC Wilmington
5/25/2017
1
Univariate Hypothesis
• Theory:
– With the rise of new and cross-cutting issues in the 1960s,
there were two major regional realignments of voters across
party lines: (Sundquist, 1983)
1. the Northeast realigned from strongly Republican to
strongly Democratic
2. the South realigned from solidly Democratic to strongly
Republican.
– However, at the national level, these regional realignments
largely counterbalanced and neither major political party has
managed to win over a stable majority of voters in national
elections. (Black & Black, 2007)
• H1: in the 2004 national electorate, neither the Republican nor
the Democratic Party had a majority of identifiers.
5/25/2017
2
Table 1:
Political Party Identification
Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an independent,
or what?
• If Democrat or Republican, would you call yourself a strong or a weak Democrat or
Republican?
• If independent, are you closer to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Cells contain:
-Column percent
-Weighted N
Distribution
1: Democrats
48.1
504
2: Independents
9.6
101
3: Republicans
42.3
443
COL TOTAL
100.0
1,049
Political Party Identification
Random-sampling error margin = ± 3.0 %
5/25/2017
3
March 2009
3
Univariate Findings
• H1 (in the 2004 national electorate, neither the Republican nor
the Democratic Party had a majority of identifiers) is not
supported by the sample data in Table 1 (because both
necessary & sufficient conditions are not observed):
1.
The lack of majority support for either major party is
observed in the sample data: 48% of the sample identifies
with the Democratic Party and 42% with the Republican
Party.
2.
However, given the random-sampling error margin of ± 3.0
percent, the Democratic Party’s support in 2004 could have
been as high as 51.1 percent.
5/25/2017
4
Bivariate Hypothesis
•
Theory:
– V. O. Key, Jr. first argued in 1942 that U.S. political parties are best
understood in terms of three components: 1) the party organization
(leaders & activists), 2) the party in government (candidates & officeholders), and 3) the party in the electorate (party identifiers & voters).
– Prior to the 1960s, the presence of Southern conservative Democrats
and Northeastern progressive Republicans diluted the ideological
polarization of the two parties. (Abramowitz & Saunders, 1988)
– However, since the 1960s, political-party elites have become
increasingly polarized in terms of political ideology. Hence, it is likely
that the mass base of each party has also become ideologically
polarized. (Black & Black, 2007)
•
H2: in the national electorate in 2004, political conservatives were more
likely than liberals to identify with the Republican Party.
5/25/2017
5
Table 2:
Party Identification by Political Ideology
Political Ideology
Cells contain:
-Column percent
-Weighted N
1
Liberal
2
Moderate
3
Conservative
ROW
TOTAL
1: Democrats
85.4
169
55.7
147
17.3
59
46.6
376
2: Independents
3.6
7
11.1
29
4.7
16
6.5
53
3: Republicans
10.9
22
33.2
88
78.0
268
46.8
377
COL TOTAL
100.0
198
100.0
264
100.0
343
100.0
806
Party ID
Summary Statistics
Tau-b = 0.54
Chi-square probability = 0.00
5/25/2017
6
Bivariate Findings
• H2 (political conservatives are more likely than liberals to
identify with the Republican Party) is strongly supported
by the sample data in Table 2 (because both necessary &
sufficient conditions are observed):
1.
Ideological polarization of the mass base of the U.S. political
parties is observed in the sample data (the taub of 0.54
indicates that this polarization is very strong in the sample
voters).
2.
In addition, this sample finding is statistically significant and
thus can be extrapolated to the national electorate. The χ2
probability of random-sampling error is less than 0.05 (it is
0.00).
5/25/2017
7
Multivariate Hypothesis
• Theory:
– Education provides the intellectual skills to deal with
abstractions like political ideology. (McCloskey,
1964)
– Hence, the impact of political ideology on party
identification in the mass public is positively related
to levels of formal education. (Key, 1961)
• H3: the intensity of ideological polarization in the mass
electorate will be stronger among those with more
formal education than among those with less formal
education.
5/25/2017
8
Table 3a
Cells contain:
-Column percent
-Weighted N
Party Identification by Political Ideology
(High school diploma or less)
Political Ideology
1
Liberal
2
Moderate
3
Conservative
ROW
TOTAL
1: Democrats
72.5
46
55.5
70
25.3
31
47.1
148
2: Independents
9.8
6
11.3
14
6.9
9
9.3
29
3: Republicans
17.7
11
33.2
42
67.8
83
43.6
137
COL TOTAL
100.0
64
100.0
127
100.0
123
100.0
314
Party ID
Summary Statistics
Tau-b = 0.37
Chi-square probability = 0.00
5/25/2017
9
Table 3b
Party Identification by Political Ideology
(Some college)
Political Ideology
Cells contain:
-Column percent
-Weighted N
Party
ID
1
Liberal
2
Moderate
3
Conservative
ROW
TOTAL
1: Democrats
86.0
40
56.4
49
20.0
21
45.9
110
2: Independents
2.1
1
9.5
8
3.4
4
5.3
13
3: Republicans
11.9
6
34.1
30
76.6
82
48.8
117
100.0
46
100.0
87
100.0
107
100.0
240
COL TOTAL
Summary Statistics
Tau-b = 0.50
Chi-square probability = 0.00
5/25/2017
10
Table 3c
Party Identification by Political Ideology
(College degree or more)
Political Ideology
Cells contain:
-Column percent
-Weighted N
1
Liberal
2
Moderate
3
Conservative
ROW
TOTAL
94.6
83
55.0
28
6.0
7
46.7
118
2: Independents
.0
0
13.2
7
3.6
4
4.3
11
3: Republicans
5.4
5
31.9
16
90.4
102
49.0
123
100.0
88
100.0
51
100.0
113
100.0
252
1: Democrats
Party
ID
COL TOTAL
Summary Statistics
Tau-b = 0.75
Chi-square probability = 0.00
5/25/2017
3
March 2009
11
Multivariate Findings
• H3 (the intensity of ideological polarization in the mass
electorate is stronger among those with more formal
education than among those with less formal education) is
supported by the sample data in Tables 3a-c (because both
necessary & sufficient conditions are observed in all three
partial tables):
1.
The strength of ideological polarization did change as
predicted in the partial-table subgroups: the taub was strong
(0.37) within non-college respondents, even stronger (0.50)
within some-college respondents, and strongest of all
(0.75) within respondents with a bachelors degree or
more.
2.
These sample findings were statistically significant in all
three partial tables at the 0.00 level.
5/25/2017
12
Substantive Implications
• The ideological polarization of partisan elites that
strengthened in the 1960s was very strong in the mass
base of both parties in the 2004 election.
• The ideological polarization of all three components of
American political parties has the advantage of offering
clarity to candidate and issue choices in a democracy.
• The ideological polarization of all three components of
American political parties has the disadvantage of
impeding the bargaining and compromise so often
crucial to achieving the best approximation of the
common good in a pluralistic society with a fragmented
political system.
5/25/2017
13
Methodological Implications
• Because there was a regional realignment of the
two major U.S. political parties that began in the
1960s, with the Republicans picking up support in
the South and the Democrats gaining support in the
northeast, region is another control necessary to
elaborate the impact of ideology on party
identification.
• Because there was a racial and ethnic realignment
of the mass base of both parties since the 1960s,
those controls also need to be investigated.
5/25/2017
14
References
•
Abramowitz, Alan I. and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S.
Electorate.” The Journal of Politics, 60(3):634-52.
•
Black, Earl and Merle Black. 2007. Divided America: The Ferocious Power Struggle in
American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
•
Key, Jr., V.O. 1942. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell.
•
Key, Jr., V.O. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
•
McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American
Political Science Review. 58(2):361-82.
•
Shively, W. Phillips. 2008. Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. 11e.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
•
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of
Political Parties in the United States. 2e. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5/25/2017
15