IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v176y2018i1d10.1007_s11127-017-0478-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Southern realignment, party sorting, and the polarization of American primary electorates, 1958–2012

Author

Listed:
  • Seth J. Hill

    (University of California, San Diego)

  • Chris Tausanovitch

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

Many scholars have argued that primary elections are an important factor in the polarization of the American Congress. Yet little research measures change in the policy preferences of primary electorates to evaluate the connection directly. We create the first explicit measures of the preferences of primary voters over the last 60 years using a Bayesian item-response theory model. Although the overall distribution of population preferences has changed little, the preferences of primary voters are now much more related to the party of the primary that they attend. We show that liberals are much more likely to turn out in Democratic primaries and conservatives are much more likely to turn out in Republican primaries. We estimate that the divergence of primary from general electorates is six times larger in 2012 than in 1958 owing to this “primary sorting”. This trend began with the emergence of the Southern Republicans. As the Republican party became viable, conservative Southerners switched to Republican primaries leading to a leftward shift in Democratic primary electorates. Nationwide, primary sorting began sometime after it began in the South. We speculate that Southern realignment played a clarifying role that contributed to subsequent sorting of primary electorates nationwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Seth J. Hill & Chris Tausanovitch, 2018. "Southern realignment, party sorting, and the polarization of American primary electorates, 1958–2012," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 107-132, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:176:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-017-0478-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-017-0478-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-017-0478-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-017-0478-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Levendusky, Matthew S., 2009. "The Microfoundations of Mass Polarization," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 162-176, April.
    2. Gerber, Alan S. & Huber, Gregory A. & Washington, Ebonya, 2010. "Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 720-744, November.
    3. Hetherington, Marc J., 2009. "Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 413-448, April.
    4. Carmines, Edward G. & Stimson, James A., 1980. "The Two Faces of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 78-91, March.
    5. Hirano, Shigeo & Snyder, James M. & Ansolabehere, Stephen & Hansen, John Mark, 2010. "Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 169-191, August.
    6. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    7. Hill, Seth J., 2015. "Institution of Nomination and the Policy Ideology of Primary Electorates," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 461-487, December.
    8. James Coleman, 1971. "Internal processes governing party positions in elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 35-60, September.
    9. Han, Hahrie & Brady, David W., 2007. "A Delayed Return to Historical Norms: Congressional Party Polarization after the Second World War," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 505-531, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Carolina Arteaga & Victoria Barone, 2023. "Democracy and The Opioid Epidemic," Working Papers tecipa-765, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jordan Kujala, 2020. "Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 587-602, July.
    2. Akifumi Ishihara, 2020. "Strategic candidacy for political compromise in party politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 389-408, July.
    3. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    4. Guirola, Luis, 2025. "Economic expectations under the shadow of party polarization: Evidence from 135 government changes," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Özgür, Arslan-Ayaydin & Thewissen, James & Torsin, Wouter, 2021. "Earnings Management Methods and CEO Political Affiliation," LIDAM Discussion Papers LFIN 2021017, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    6. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2006. "Do Voters Vote Sincerely?," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-008, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    7. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2024. "Quantifying theory in politics: Identification, interpretation, and the role of structural methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 301-327, October.
    8. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    9. Omar Al-Ubaydli & Faith Fatchen & John List, 2025. "Using Field Experiments to Understand the Impact of Institutions on Economic Growth," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, edition 0, chapter 42, pages 1117-1143, Springer.
    10. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    11. Dodlova, Marina & Zudenkova, Galina, 2021. "Incumbents’ performance and political extremism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    12. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "The EU Council enlarged: North-South-East or core-periphery?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-106, March.
    13. Sanford C. Gordon & Hannah K. Simpson, 2020. "Causes, theories, and the past in political science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 315-333, December.
    14. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    15. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    16. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    17. Matilde Bombardini & Bingjing Li & Francesco Trebbi, 2023. "Did US Politicians Expect the China Shock?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 174-209, January.
    18. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    19. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    20. Sanford C. Gordon & Dimitri Landa, 2018. "Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 193-210, July.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:176:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-017-0478-0. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.