IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v96y2015i1p104-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Damnedest Mess: An Empirical Evaluation of the 1966 Georgia Gubernatorial Election

Author

Listed:
  • Charles S. Bullock III
  • M. V. Hood III

Abstract

type="main"> The 1966 gubernatorial campaign provides an interesting retrospective examination of Georgia politics during a period of seismic change that included the dawn of two-party competition, black enfranchisement, and legislative determination of the chief executive. This article provides an empirical evaluation of the 1966 gubernatorial election in Georgia, including action that occurred in the General Assembly following the election. Our findings clearly define the various coalitions supporting the three gubernatorial candidates and also explain why the plurality popular winner loses the legislative vote. The 1966 election is not only interesting as a case study in its own right, but one that had a major impact on two-party politics and legislative-executive relations in Georgia for decades to come.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles S. Bullock III & M. V. Hood III, 2015. "The Damnedest Mess: An Empirical Evaluation of the 1966 Georgia Gubernatorial Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(1), pages 104-118, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:1:p:104-118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ssqu.12132
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:bla:socsci:v:96:y:2015:i:1:p:104-118. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.