Microfilmed 1992
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MICROFILMED 1992 . ____ , — i INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9238288 Party integration: Toward a theory of U.S. political parties Trish, Barbara Ann, Ph.D. The Ohio State Univenity, 1992 UMI 300N,ZeebR& Ann Aibor. MI 48106 PARTY INTEGRATION: TOWARD A THEORY OF U.S. POLITICAL PARTIES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Barbara Ann Trish, B,A. The Ohio State University 1992 Dissertation Committee: Approved by John H. Kessel Paul Allen Beck Herbert B. Asher Department of Political Science Copyright by Barbara Arm Triah 1992 To My Mother, Sylvia Triah ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have many people to thank. Professor John Kessel is a superb adviser. I can think of no better mentor. I also thank Professors Paul Beck and Herb Asher for giving their insight and time. John Bruce generously helped with my data and Bill Jacoby gave early guidance in this project. My mother, Sylvia Trish, made it possible for me to live a somewhat normal life and still complete this dissertation. Finally, I thank my husband Bill Manner and sons Jack and Robbie for being patient and always a lot of fun. iii VITA October 1, 1961 Born - Albert Lea, Minnesota 1903 ........ B.A., College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota 1989 Instructor, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio 1990-Present . Instructor, Grinnell College .Grinnell, Iowa PUBLICATIONS Entries in L. Sandy Maisel, ed., Encyclopedia of American Political Parties. 1991. New York: Garland. "The American Political Science Review: A Retrospective of Last Year and the Last Eight Decades." I960. Coauthored with Samuel C. Patterson and Brian D. Ripley. PS. 21:908- 925. FIELDS 07 STUDY Major Field: Political Science iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION........................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................... iii VITA ............................................. iv LIST OF T A B L E S .................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES.................................... ix PREFACE................... 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. SIX IMAGES OF POLITICAL PARTIES.......... 3 Conceptual Approaches to Political Parties 5 Structural Parties ...................... 7 Functional Parties ...................... 9 Parties as Social Organizations .......... 12 Tripartite P a r t i e s ...................... ' 14 Structural-Functional Parties ............ 18 Electoral-Organ!rational Parties ........ 19 Assessing the A p p r o a c h e s ................ 21 N o t e s .......... '................. 29 II. CONCEPTUALIZATION AND EMPIRICAL DESIGN . 31 Party Organization Conceptualized........ 32 Determining an Empirical F o c u s .......... 42 Data Collection......................... 56 N o t e s .................................... 59 III. MEASURING INTEGRATION.................... 61 Some General Considerations.............. 62 Measuring Integration ........ 64 Testing the Measure...................... 75 Data G rades .............................. 77 v Test One: Complete versus Partial Data . 83 Teat Two: Party-based versus Campaign-based Integration .......... 89 Notes ........... 97 IV. INTEGRATION IN OHIO AND INDIANA: AN AGGREGATE ANALYSIS ............... 101 Partisan Patterns ....................... 101 Office Patterns .......................... Ill State P a t t e r n s .......................... 121 The Deviant Cases . .................... 126 Co nclusi on ............................. 135 N o t e s ................................... 138 V. INTEGRATION IN OHIO AND INDIANA: A COUNTY-LEVEL ANALYSIS ................... 141 Population Patterns ...................... 141 Activity Patterns ....................... 152 Conc l u s i o n ............................. 165 N o t e s ................................... 166 VI. INTEGRATION ACROSS THE UNITED STATES . 167 Presidential D a t a ....................... 169 Aggregate Consistency .................... 171 County-Level Agreement ................. 190 C o nclus ion............................. 195 N o t e s ................................... 196 VII. CONCLUSION............................. 198 N o t e s ................................... 207 APPENDIX ....................................... 208 LIST OF REF ERENCE S............................... 221 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. The Language of Party Organizations .... 39 2. Party Ties and U n i t s ................. 55 3. Number of County Cases in Data Set .... 57 4. Data Grades, Requirements and Merits . 81 5. Partisan and State Breakdown of Complete and Partial Data (Data Grades 1 and 3) . 84 6. Partisan and State Breakdown of Complete and Partial Data (Data Grades 2 and 4) . 87 7. Representative Quality of Partial Data (Data Grades 3 and 4 ) ................. 88 8. Party** and Campaign-based Integration Measurements........... 91 9. Symmetry of Party- and Campaign-based Integration........................... 93 10. Ratio of Symmetric to Asymmetric Counties . 95 11. Integration within Democratic and Republican T i e s .................... 102 12. Integration within Senate and Presidential T i e s .................. 112 13. Integration in Ohio and Indiana.........122 14. The Relationship between Party and Integration in Senate T i e s ........................ 127 vii. 15. County Population within Categories of Integration ...................... 142 16. Level of Formal Party Activity on behalf of Candidates ................... ..... 153 17. Partisan Differences in Party Integration: Indiana/Ohio and Hational Comparisons . 173 18. Regional Differences in Presidential Integration............................. 182 19. Population and Party Integration: Hational and State Comparisons .......... 191 20. Activity Levels for Counties of Different Populations (Hational Data) .............. 193 21. OLS Regression Estimates of the Effects of Party, State, Activity Level and County Population on Party Integration .......... 200 viii LIST or FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Six Conceptualizations of the Political P a r t y ..................... 14 2. Basic Party Organization................ 33 3. Basic Party Organization Reflecting Real-World Structures .................... 38 4. Measuring Integration Using Contact and Cooperation.......................... 66 5. Affinity Rankings in Creation of Integration Measure ...................... 72 6. Final Integration Measure and Distributions 75 7. Presidential Integration across Ohio/Indiana and National D a t a ........................ 171 ix PSUBTACE When I initially began this research, I was faced with two observations about electoral politics in the U.S.. First was the fact that politics is now largely candidate- centered. Not only do scholarly works point to this, but even the most basic examinations of politics show this as well. The second observation is that party organizations are alive and well. By some accounts they are even stronger now than they were in the recent past. At first these observations struck me as somewhat . paradoxical. If candidates control their own fates, then why don't the party organizations simply slip away? Likewise, how is it that candidate-run campaigns continue to hold their own when party organizations are vital? The solution to the paradox is simple. It lies in the fact that party politics is not a zero-sum game. Clearly candidates and the formal party organizations do not each prosper at the expense of the other. But this says nothing about how they coexist. With this in mind, my research was initially intended to be a broad study of political parties, with an emphasis on the formal party organizations and the campaigns. With time, however, it evolved into one with a narrow and intensive focus on party integration. The first chapter depicts this transformation as it moves from a general discussion of the approaches to parties found in political science to a more refined focus on my own approach and research. The remainder of the dissertation converges on the topic of party integration. CHAPTER I SIX IMAGES OP POLITICAL PARTIES There is a large and diverse