IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v80y1986i02p567-588_18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Wright, Gerald C.
  • Berkman, Michael B.

Abstract

This analysis demonstrates that policy issues play an important role in the selection of members of Congress. We differ with the conclusion of much of the existing research on congressional elections, which indicates that policy considerations are of minor importance. We have conducted an analysis of the 1982 U.S. Senate elections, drawing on data from the CBS News/New York Times 1982 congressional poll and from 23 statewide exit polls. We demonstrate that (1) candidates behave as though they believe issues are important to voters; (2) candidates' policy positions systematically influence voters' decisions; and (3) candidates' issue positions and voters' evaluations of the president and the economy interact to provide clear patterns of policy effects on Senate election outcomes. Policy effects are substantial and systematic in Senate elections, and cannot be omitted if we are to appreciate the importance of congressional elections in the national policy-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Wright, Gerald C. & Berkman, Michael B., 1986. "Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 567-588, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:80:y:1986:i:02:p:567-588_18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400183248/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cintolesi, Andrea, 2022. "Political polarization and primary elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 596-617.
    2. René Lindstädt & Ryan Wielen, 2011. "Timely shirking: time-dependent monitoring and its effects on legislative behavior in the U.S. Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 119-148, July.
    3. Kenneth A. Shepsle & Robert P. Van Houweling & Samuel J. Abrams & Peter C. Hanson, 2009. "The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 343-359, April.
    4. Wouter van der Brug, 2001. "Perceptions, Opinions and Party Preferences in the Face of a Real World Event," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 53-80, January.
    5. Jeffrey Harden & Thomas Carsey, 2012. "Balancing constituency representation and party responsiveness in the US Senate: the conditioning effect of state ideological heterogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 137-154, January.
    6. Michael Peress, 2011. "Securing the base: electoral competition under variable turnout," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 87-104, July.
    7. Alberto Alesina & Morris Fiorina & Howard Rosenthal, 1991. "Why Are There So Many Divided Senate Delegations?," NBER Working Papers 3663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Robert E. Hogan, 2008. "Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 858-873, October.
    9. Joseph Gershtenson, 2009. "Candidates and Competition: Variability in Ideological Voting in U.S. Senate Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(1), pages 117-133, March.
    10. Jangsup Choi, 2017. "Leaving Office: The U.S. Senator’s Representation, Ideological Adoption, and Strategic Retirement," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(10), pages 17-27, October.
    11. Benjamin Bishin & Jay Dow & James Adams, 2006. "Does democracy “suffer” from diversity? Issue representation and diversity in senate elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 201-215, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:80:y:1986:i:02:p:567-588_18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.