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 o f computer printer. The quali^ of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality L illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet 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 comer 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 o f 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. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnaüon Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE DIVIDED VOTER IN AMERICAN POLITICS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By David C. Kimball, M.A. The Ohio State University 1997 Dissertation Committee : Professor Paul Allen Beck, Adviser Professor Herbert F. Weisberg Adviser Department of Political Professor Dean Lacy Science UMI Number: 9813286 UMI Microform 9813286 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT The last thirty years in American politics have been characterized by volatility and divided national government. A president often has co negotiate with a Congress controlled by the opposite party, and the president's approval ratings can swiftly lurch from positive to negative. To a large extent, these conditions are created by citizens who divide their votes between the major parties. This dissertation examines several ways in which citizens deviate from consistent party-line voting (for example, by casting a split ballot in a single election). I argue for a broader definition of divided voting that includes voting behavior over the course of a four- year election cycle. For instance, swing voters who switch parties in consecutive House elections are more common, and more consequential, than previous studies suggest. This study also seeks to explain why some people divide their votes between the two major parties in presidential and House elections. The evidence presented here suggests that divided voting is the result of many different forces. The relative visibility and quality of competing House candidates is an important factor, as most people split their votes by defecting from their identified party in the House contest. As House contests have become more competitive, ticket- splitting has declined in the last two national elections. [- Retrospective evaluations of the president's performance, and ratings of the presidential candidates, also influence whether citizens divide their votes between the parties. Past supporters of the president's party change allegiances when the president's performance ii fails to live up to expectations. In addition, voters who are less- than-enthusiastic about their presidential selection are more likely than others to produce a split ballot by supporting the opposite party in the House contest. This has implications for the future, as voter satisfaction with presidential choices has steadily declined since the late 1960s. Citizens also divide their votes between the parties in response to sincere ideological considerations. For example, voters are more likely to switch parties when their ideological preferences put them at odds with the party they supported in previous elections. Increasingly, liberals have been moving to the Democratic party while conservatives have shifted to the Republican party. Finally, the evidence presented here fails to support the hypothesis that sophisticated, moderate voters divide their votes in order to create divided government and take advantage of checks and balances in our constitutional system. Rather, less informed and less knowledgeable voters who are indifferent to political parties, and who blur or minimize the differences between the parties, are most likely to split their votes between the parties. At the aggregate level, ticket- splitting is more common when the parties converge toward the middle of the ideological spectrum. If polarization between the parties continues in the future, we should see a further decline in ticket-splitting. Understanding why people divide their votes will help us make sense of divided government. Divided government occurs because candidates often avoid stiff competition in House elections, and because elected officials often obscure philosophical differences between the parties. Dedicated to my parents, David W. and Carol L. Kimball, Jr. IV ACKNOWLEDGMEÏITS This project benefitted tremendously from the help and advice of many people. The dissertation started out as an independent readings project with Paul Beck in the summer of 1994, after I read an article on ticket-splitting that he published with Larry Baum, Aage Clausen, and Chuck Smith. The summer project produced an essay, which later turned into a research design, then a dissertation prospectus, and finally, this tome. Professor Beck provided detailed suggestions and encouragement at each point in the process. He gave me enough room to pursue my own lines of inquiry, but also kept me from getting too far off course. His guidance had a tremendous effect in helping me complete this project. My debt to Herb Weisberg is equally substantial. He prodded me to think more about some of the big picture questions, and to focus on the more unique aspects of this study. In his own way. Herb taught me that there is something to be gained by approaching the same question from new and different perspectives. Herb also has been a mentor to me in many respects that go beyond this dissertation. Dean Lacy and Katherine Tate, the other members of my committee, have been very helpful as well. Even though some of the arguments in this study do not necessarily square with parts of Dean's work, he has done everything to support me. Dean is also responsible for putting me on a panel on divided government and ticket-splitting at the 1997 American Political Science Association meetings. Katherine Tate read each of the chapters as well, and encouraged me to include more real- world examples. This is an improved document because of their help. The faculty and graduate students in Ohio State's political science department created a terrific working environment. Several faculty provided advice and encouragement when I presented parts of this work in colloquia or practice job talks at Ohio State: they include Larry Baum, Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Greg Caldeira, Tim Groseclose, Tom Nelson, and Samuel Patterson. Finally, I am grateful to the Ohio State University graduate school for awarding me a fellowship which helped me devote more attention to the dissertation during the 1996-97 school year. I am also indebted to many current and former graduate students at Ohio State. Several listened to me prattle on about the dissertation, commented on parts of it, or influenced my thinking in writing it: they include Laura Arnold, Barry Burden, Lisa Campoli, Rosie Clawson, Rebecca Deen, Eric Heberlig, Marie Hojnacki, Steve Nichols, David Niven, Zoe Oxley, Peter Radcliffe, Rorie Spill, and Greg Strizek. In addition, many political science graduate students at Ohio State helped me enjoy my two avocations, sports and music. I will cherish the five years I spent there. I have also been helped by friends and faculty outside of Ohio State University. Gary Jacobson was generous in sending me congressional campaign finance data for 1974. In addition, Brian Smentkowski and Richard Brody offered constructive advice when I presented chapter 5 at the 1997 American Political Science Association meetings. Finally, I'm very grateful to the teachers at John Burroughs School in St. Louis, where I attended high school. Alice and John Snodgrass, in particular, helped nurture my dual interests in math and politics. I owe a profound debt to my parents, who supported me at every stage of my education. Both instilled in my sister and me an interest in politics, especially my mother, who received a Master's degree in political science from the University of Chicago. Our parents VI encouraged my sister and me to develop our own political beliefs, even when we chose a path different from their intended orthodoxy. We sometimes sharply disagreed, occasionally persuaded one another of the merits of our position, and always respected each other's right to an opinion. Having been exposed to a more academic view of political socialization in graduate school, I am rather amazed that our parents reacted to our independence with such tolerance and good nature. I am especially thankful for my extended family, especially after the death of my father ten months ago. My wife, Laura Arnold, my sister, Mary, my mother, Carol, and my aunts and uncles, Lina and Skip Wanders and Josephine and Bruce Clarke, have been extremely helpful in family decisions while I have been working on the dissertation during this difficult time. Finally, I cannot properly express my gratitude to my wife, Laura Arnold. While we share a passion for politics, Laura has done more than her share of listening to me talk about the dissertation.