Search

Do nonvoters who say they voted bias electoral participation research? Early studies said they do not, but Bernstein, Chadha, and Montjoy concluded that overreporters alter the effects of most independent variables. This research tests whether overreporters bias conclusions about additional untested variables and whether we obtain the same results as Bernstein and his coauthors when we test different models. Overreporters bias the coefficients of only a small proportion of independent variables in more typical models, although overreporting is more problematic than the early studies reported. Specifically, in the models this research tests, overreporters change the effects of African American race, marital status, Southern residence, and closing date on presidential election turnout and African American race, marital status, Hispanic ethnicity, occupation, and open seat races on midterm turnout. A warning about how overreporting bias affects, or may affect, their conclusions should accompany studies that include these, or other, untested variables.

This article supports the Converse party support model in Britain and more generally. The Converse theory, which has implications for electoral stability, is that public support for political parties comes from individuals whose partisanship strengthens as they gain experience in voting for a party. Abramson recently concluded the theory does not apply in Britain because generational change and historical (period) effects account for partisan intensities. He argued that even if period effects concealed life cycle gains, the theory would not apply because historical events in Britain - and in the United States - are too modest. From British panel data, this article reports the strongest evidence to date supporting life cycle gains in partisanship. Cohort equations show generational change in addition, as a secondary explanation. Cohort equations also disclose which historical events caused de, alignment. Dealignment periods in both Britain and the United States are limited, and the events that produced them are rare.

Carol A. Cassel, University of Alabama As editor Herb Weisberg writes in the introduction, Democracy's Feast: Elections in America is really about the 1992 election. The broader title fits because [...]

Multiple regression and probit are used to test explanations of the post-1964 decline in turnout for presidential elections in nonsouthern states. Twelve socioeconomic and attitudinal variables are used to predict validated voting reports collected in conjunction with the 1964 and 1976 national election studies conducted by the SRC/CPS. Both the regression and probit analyses indicate that political attitudes, like partisanship and concern over the election outcome, have contributed to the decline in turnout; however, education and interest variables have offset the decline attributed to changes in political attitudes. The analysis leaves the puzzle of declining turnout largely unsolved. Alternative explanations of the decline in turnout are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]