ArticlePDF Available

“Friends and Neighbors” Voting

DOI:10.2307/2129327
Authors:
Raymond Tatalovich at Loyola University Chicago
Raymond Tatalovich
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

Allmost A Quarter Century ago V. O. Key, Jr. published his landmark Southern Politics, an exhaustive study of the one party politics which dominated the eleven states of the former Confederacy. One of his dramatic observations, that of “friends and neighbors” voting, has gained the status of a political truism. Donald E. Stokes and Warren E. Miller have shown that voters are more aware of a congressional candidate who resides in their community rather than outside it. Such evidence lends credence to Key's argument, but researchers as yet have not applied statistical measures directly to the electoral pattern which he outlined. Key said: “Candidates for state office tend to poll overwhelming majorities in their home counties and to draw heavy support in adjacent counties.”
Figures - uploaded by Raymond Tatalovich
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Raymond Tatalovich
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Raymond Tatalovich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raymond Tatalovich on Jan 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
University of Chicago Press and Southern Political Science Association
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to
The Journal of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
"Friends and Neighbors" Voting: Mississippi, 1943-73
Author(s): Raymond Tatalovich
Source:
The Journal of Politics,
Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1975), pp. 807-814
Published by: on behalf of the University of Chicago Press Southern Political Science
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129327
Accessed: 09-01-2016 17:23 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129327?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
";Friends
and
Neighbors"
Voting:
Mississippi,
1943-73
RAYMOND TATALOVICH
ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY ago V. 0. Key, Jr. published his land-
mark Southern Politics, an exhaustive study of the one party politics
which dominated the eleven states of the former Confederacy.'
One of his dramatic observations, that of "friends and neighbors"
voting, has gained the status of a political truism. Donald E. Stokes
and Warren E. Miller have shown that voters are more aware of a
congressional candidate who resides in their community rather than
outside it.2 Such evidence lends credence to Key's argument, but
researchers as yet have not applied statistical measures directly to
the electoral pattern which he outlined. Key said: "Candidates for
state office tend to poll overwhelming majorities in their home
counties and to draw heavy support in adjacent counties."3
Recently, two scholars provided an index to "friends and neigh-
bors" voting for George Wallace in Alabama.4 They assumed that
all counties voting at least 45 percent for Wallace in his first Demo-
cratic primary, and voting above the statewide percentage for him
in each successive election, represented his "friends and neighbors"
1( (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949).
2 "Party Government and the Saliency of Congress," The Public Opinion
Quarterly,
26 (Winter, 1962), 544.
3 Key, Southern Politics, 37.
4 Earl Black and Merle Black, "The Wallace Vote in Alabama: A Multiple
Regression Analysis," The Journal of Politics, 35 (August, 1973), 730-736.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
808 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 37, 1975
counties. In this case, such criteria isolated seven counties around
Wallace's home in southeastern Alabama. But this operational defi-
nition a priori would not cluster counties in any election for any
candidate so neatly. A candidate may draw disproportionate sup-
port from counties which are scattered across a state at random or
according to some implicit socio-economic cleavage. Also, while
the 45 percent mark seems appropriate to Wallace's vote distribu-
tion in his first election, it would not apply to candidates who polled
only marginal support. Rather, the concept of "friends and neigh-
bors" must be operationalized so that comparative analysis may be
undertaken of any election.
This analysis will provide a statistical refinement of Key's "friends
and neighbors" concept, and it will suggest conditions under which
this phenomenon is most operative. The measurement was made
by correlating (with Pearson product-moment coefficient) the per-
centage of each county's total vote going to a candidate against the
distance of each county from that candidate's county of residence.
A statistically significant negative correlation is interpreted as veri-
fication of "friends and neighbors." It signifies that the candidate
polled disproportionately more votes in counties nearer to his home
and disproportionately fewer votes in counties more distant from his
home. This operational definition of "friends and neighbors," more-
over, permits its comparison to other statewide electoral cleavages,
such as urban-rural and white-nonwhite.
V. 0. Key identified "friends and neighbors" voting in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi. All
these states typified in various degrees one party multifactionalism.
Numerous candidates crowded the first Democratic primary, and
each relied on personal campaign finances and organization. Unlike
two-partyism or bifactional one-partyism, allegiance to local interests
and to the home town boy strongly modified any voting based on
statewide socioeconomic cleavages. By the critical test of one party
multifactionalism, Mississippi remains unchanged even today.
During the 1943-73 period, Democrats won every election for
Senator, Governor, and Lieutenant Governor. Forty-four different
individuals provided the field of 147 candidates who contested these
offices as Democrats, whether in first primary, in runoff primary, or
in general election. Most contenders (107) entered the first pri-
maries, with an average of 4.86 candidates per first primary.
The task of collecting data for analysis proved to be quite for-
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS" VOTING 809
midable. Raw election returns for 82 counties had to be converted
into percentages for all candidates. Also, the inter-county distances
had to be calculated for every different county of residence en-
countered. To facilitate the analysis, therefore, those candidates
given extremely marginal or virtually unanimous support were elim-
inated. After excluding all candidates receiving under 10 percent
or over 90 percent of the vote cast, the research focused on the re-
maining sample of 103 contenders.
The analysis was guided by eight hypotheses which flow from the
logic of Key's argument. They are:
(1) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent in the
first primary than in the runoff primary or in the general election.
(2) That "friends and neighbors" voting has declined in fre-
quency over the period under study.
(3) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent when
candidates do not reside in the same approximate geographical area
of the state.
(4) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent when
a candidate's strongest opponent does not reside in the same approx-
imate geographical area of the state.
(5) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent in elec-
tions which offer many candidates to the voters.
(6) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent in
elections for less prestigious offices.
(7) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent in elec-
tions waged by relatively marginal than by relatively popular can-
didates.
(8) That "friends and neighbors" voting is more frequent at the
beginning of candidates' electoral careers than during subsequent
elections.
These hypotheses are evaluated in terms of the data summarized
in Table 1. Overall, three-fifths of all elections studied confirmed
"friends and neighbors" voting, and this phenomenon was not lim-
ited to only a few persons. Thirty-seven different individuals expe-
rienced "friends and neighbors" at some election in their careers,
whereas only seven individuals never exhibited this electoral base.
And "friends and neighbors" voting was found throughout the major
regions of Mississippi's political culture.5
5Political friction between conservative interests which dominate "the Delta"
and populist spokesmen who represent "the Hills" is commonplace in the history
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
810 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 37, 1975
The phenomenon, generally, was found to be constrained by the
variables suggested in the hypotheses offered. As postulated in
hypothesis one, most "friends and neighbors" voting did occur in the
first Democratic primary. The differences among the three types of
elections, however, are not great. In the first primary the voters are
given many candidates from whom to choose, so it is more probable
that each locale would be able to find some favorite son with which
to identify.
In the runoff primary, however, when the field is narrowed to the
top candidates, the voters seemingly would not calculate the nearest
of the remaining contenders as their "new" home town boy. Rather,
segments of the electorate might turn to other criteria in voting,
such as issues, or withdraw from the political contest entirely. In
every instance studied, voter turnout in Mississippi's runoff primaries
declined from the levels recorded in the respective first primaries.
To this extent, if "friends and neighbors" identification is relevant to
enough Mississippi voters, the weakening of "friends and neighbors"
voting in the runoff primaries could reflect a distorted geographical
distribution of the statewide vote.
In general elections the existence of a Republican alternative
could aid in further undermining "friends and neighbors." Pre-
liminary findings do show that Republican voting in Mississippi
counties relates to given socioeconomic variables.6 A Democrat's
share of the vote in a general election, therefore, would not be influ-
enced simply by the distance of counties to his home. Also, the
threat to their party's supremacy might prompt many Democrats to
rally behind their standard-bearer, regardless of his residence. In
the five general elections when Republicans fielded extraordinarily
strong contenders (who polled at least 25 percent of the vote), the
of Mississippi. The demarcation
of this division is not obvious, but candidates
from four counties clearly of "the Delta" (Adams, Sharkey, Sunflower, Coa-
homa) exhibited "friends and neighbors" voting in 55.6 percent of their elec-
tions. If the twenty-two other counties providing candidates are considered
"the Hills," their candidates did only slightly better (60.2 percent). For a map
of Mississippi's soil regions and a discussion of this cleavage, see Charles N.
Fortenberry and F. Glenn Abney, "Mississippi: Unreconstructed and Unre-
deemed," in The Changing Politics of the South, ed. William C. Harvard
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972), 473-475, 502-504.
6 Counties typified by a "high-status-urban"
factor tended to vote Republi-
can in the 1968 Presidential election. See Donald S. Strong, "Further Reflec-
tions on Southern
Politics," The Journal of Politics, 33 (May, 1971), 245.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS' VOTING 811
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY OF "FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS" VOTING FOR DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATES
IN MISsISSIPPI
DURING
1943-73 ACCORDING
TO
SELECTED
VARIABLES
Variables N Friends and Neighbors
Elections-
1. Total Sample 103 60.2%
2. Type of Election:
General Election 10 50.0%o
Runoff Primary 29 58.6
First Primary 64 62.5
3. Period:
1943-58 57 64.9%
1959-73 46 54.4
4. Proximity of Nearest Opponent:
0-99 Miles 65 58.5%o
100+ Miles 38 63.2
5. Proximity
of Strongest Opponent:
0-99 Miles 40 47.5%
100+ Miles 63 68.3
6. Number of Candidates:
2 33 57.6%o
3 8 37.5
4 19 57.9
5 18 6140t72.2
68 13 6 0%692 67.4%
7 8 50.0
8 4 75.0
7. Office:
Senate 20 65.0%/
Governor 45 60.0
Lieutenant Governor 38 57.9
8. Vote Percent Obtained:
10-29 49 65.3%
30-49 28 57.1
50-69 21 61.9
70-89 5 20.0
9. Election Attempts by Candidates:
First 41 75.6%1
Second 21 52.4
Third 12 50.0
Fourth or More 29 48.3
a The percentage of "friends and neighbors" elections in each category repre-
sents the number of instances when candidates exhibited statistically significant,
negative correlations between the vote percent they polled in Mississippi
counties and the distance of those counties to the candidates' county of resi-
dence. Verification of "friends and neighbors" depended upon the negative
correlations
being statistically significant
at least at the .05 level.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
812 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 37, 1975
Democratic candidate failed to carry "friends and neighbors" in four
cases.
Hypothesis two is confirmed by the findings, and the slow devel-
opment of two party competition during the past decade may be one
factor diminishing the frequency of "friends and neighbors" in the
post-1959 era. The overall socioeconomic status of the Mississippi
citizenry has improved somewhat over the decade too, and pre-
sumably this development would serve to increase the salience of
issue politics for the populace. Finally, large numbers of Blacks
have entered the Mississippi electorate since the mid-1960s, and
they may be evaluating the candidacies of white Democrats in terms
other than simply "friends and neighbors." For whatever reasons,
however, the sharp decline in "friends and neighbors" today is con-
sistent with our expectation that further political and socioeconomic
development in the South will modify or eliminate many political
attributes heretofore peculiar to that region.
Hypotheses three, four, and five delineate the importance of can-
didate selection to "friends and neighbors" voting. If two candi-
dates reside in the same approximate geographical area of the state,
they would be relying on the same "friends and neighbors." But
should they live miles apart, both candidates would be able to draw
exclusively upon distinct bases of localized support. And as shown
in Table 1, the proportion of "friends and neighbors" elections is
higher when the nearest opponent lives in a county one hundred
miles or more away.
The negative relationship between "friends and neighbors" voting
and the proximity of opponents, moreover, is increased when the
distance of a candidate's strongest rival is considered. Clearly, if
that opponent geographically close to a candidate's home is only
marginal, the impact of dual localism would be less severe than if
that opponent is a major contender. And Table 1 shows that the
proportion of "friends and neighbors" elections is much higher when
a candidate's strongest opponent resides in a county 100 miles or
more away.
If "friends and neighbors" voting depends upon each com-
munity being able to identify a home town boy among the con-
tenders, then one would expect its frequency to increase in those
elections which offer many candidates for office. As indicated by
the data, however, the relationship between the frequency of
"friends and neighbors" and the number of candidates is not perfect.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS VOTING 813
Still, the frequency is higher for elections involving three or more
candidates rather than only two. And the frequency would jump to
over two-thirds for those elections offering five or more candidates.
The impact of "visibility" on "friends and neighbors" was analysed
with regard to hypotheses six, seven, and eight. Implicit in all three
hypotheses is the assumption that increased visibility would engen-
der controversy, and thereby undermine the "friends and neighbors"
disposition of the electorate.
According to Table 1, however, the prestige attached to an office
does not affect "friends and neighbors" in the expected direction.
That is, the most prestigious office of United States Senator exhibits
more "friends and neighbors" voting than the least prestigious office,
that of Lieutenant Governor. In the light of this datum, therefore, it
seems that when a prestigious office is at stake, the voters in each
community are more aware of all the candidates in the field and,
consequently, better able to recognize their favorite son.
On the other hand, increased visibility of candidates does serve to
blunt their "friends and neighbors" support. The relationship be-
tween "friends and neighbors" voting and the vote percentage polled
by candidates is not perfect, but it does obtain at the extremes of
the distribution. It was most frequent for candidates who polled
10-29 percent of the vote cast and least frequent for candidates who
polled 70-89 percent of the vote cast.
Certainly candidate visibility is increased by repeated attempts to
secure office, and the findings clearly substantiate hypothesis eight.
Repeated attempts by a candidate for any of the three offices studied
is related to a steep decline in the frequency of "friends and neigh-
bors."7
To summarize, this research note provides a statistical refinement
of V.0. Key's "friends and neighbors" voting which can be applied
universally. In Mississippi, it was exhibited in three-fifths of the
elections studied for Senator, Governor, and Lieutenant Governor
during 1943-73. It occurred most frequently prior to 1959, in first
Democratic primaries, and when many candidates were presented
to the electorate. "Friends and neighbors" voting is undermined
when opponents reside in the same geographical area of the state,
7 In the case of Wallace's electoral coalition, it was found that the importance
of "friends and neighbors" weakened with subsequent elections, though it did
not disappear entirely. See Earl Black and Merle Black, "The Wallace Vote,"
733.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
814 THE JOUJNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 37, 1975
and particularly when the strongest rival in the field shares the same
localized support. Finally, it was found that increased visibility of
the office being contested aids "friends and neighbors" voting but
that candidate visibility limits its operation. Candidate visibility
was measured in terms of the vote percentage obtained in an elec-
tion and in terms of the number of electoral attempts made during
one s career.
This content downloaded from 147.126.1.145 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:23:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
... Although several related mechanisms could account for these effects and it is not always possible to distinguish conclusively between them, additional analyses suggest that alternative mechanisms, such as the presence of "hometown boys"/local candidates (Key 1949;Talalovich 1975), pork-barrel politics, legislative behavior, or perceived improvements in substantive representation, cannot simply account for these results. Instead, I find evidence suggesting that embedded representatives are particularly effective at empowering constituents and mobilizing political participation in four ways. ...
... To assess whether the mobilization effect is simply driven by hometown-boy effects (Key 1949;Talalovich 1975), I test whether the mere running of a local candidate increases electoral participation. I find no evidence of such local candidate effects: turnout among constituents with a lottery candidate from their municipality is no higher than among constituents without such a local candidate (p = 0.9917). ...
Does Political Representation Increase Participation? Evidence from Party Candidate Lotteries in Mexico
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2022
How does representation by politicians from specific communities influence these communities’ political participation? Analyzing a natural experiment from Mexico in which a party uses lotteries to select candidates for public office, this paper presents new insights into how representation shapes the political participation of underrepresented segments of society. I find that participation in subsequent elections is significantly higher among constituents who have been represented by randomly selected legislators with a similar social background who are part of local organizational networks (embedded representatives). Furthermore, I show that these represented constituents feel more empowered and that the party that provides this “grassroots” representation is rewarded with more support in the subsequent election. The findings highlight the importance of community embeddedness for political mobilization and have important implications for debates about democratic inclusion and representation.
View
... The traditional focus of research on local candidate effects has been on national elections, most prominently exemplified by the stream of studies of candidacies for the US president and to the US Congress (e.g. Black & Black, 1973;Frendreis & Tatalovich, 2021;Garand, 1988;Kjar & Laband, 2002;Lewis-Beck & Rice, 1983;McCarty, 1954;Mixon et al., 2008;Mixon & Tyrone, 2004;Rice & Macht, 1987a;Tatalovich, 1975;Van Wingen & Parker, 1979), influenced by V. O. Key's (1949) work. Of course, evidence for 'friends and neighbors effects' has also been found in numerous other democracies, such as Australia (Johnston, 1978), Belgium (Put et al., 2019), Canada (Blais et al., 2003;Stevens et al., 2019), Finland (Arter 2011(Arter , 2021Put et al., 2020), France (Audemard & Gouard, 2020), Germany (Schulte-Cloos & Bauer, 2021), Great Britain (Arzheimer & Evans, 2012;Collignon & Sajuria, 2018;Evans et al., 2017;Johnston et al. 2016aJohnston et al. , 2016b, Ireland (Parker, 1982;Górecki & Marsh 2012, 2014Johnson, 1989;Kavanagh et al., 2004), Lithuania (Herron & Lynch, 2019), Poland (Górecki, 2015) or Norway (Fiva & Smith, 2017), Although such studies were typically limited to an examination of candidate choice, a small number of those have demonstrated that the presence of a local candidate may also increase voter turnout (Baumann et al., 2021;Johnston, 1978;Kavanagh et al., 2004;Panagopoulos et al., 2017). ...
Local voting at local elections revisited: ‘Friends and neighbors voting’ at mayoral elections in rural Poland
Article
Voters' tendency to support local candidates, often referred to as ‘friends and neighbors voting’, is a spatial-political phenomenon studied for over 70 years. The last decade has seen a revival of interest in this issue. Relevant studies typically focus on large-scale national electoral contests, such as national parliamentary elections. The research efforts targeting local elections are, by contrast, scarce, in most cases dating back to the 1970s. In this article, we address this relative gap in the electoral geography literature and study ‘friends and neighbors voting’ at the most recent set of mayoral elections in Poland, held in 2018. Based on a rich dataset, covering elections in over 700 rural municipalities, we demonstrate strong local candidate effects in both voter choice and voter turnout. The results point to the potential relevance of both geographic distance and a place (locality) attachment; voters tend to prefer candidates living close to them and candidates enjoy an additional surplus of votes in their home localities. Our results also tend to echo the sparse previous findings emphasizing the possibility that the presence of a local candidate boosts voter turnout in a given area. While the limitations of our data do not allow unequivocal conclusions about the exact mechanisms driving the aforementioned effects, we put forward a number of plausible, grounded conjectures as to how such effects may operate.
View
... This phenomenon is essentially the advantage candidates enjoy in the town, county, state, or other geographic area in which they currently reside, compared to other areas in their electoral jurisdiction. Key and others have found support for the friends-and-neighbors voting effect at different levels of government (Johnston et al., 2016;Lewis-Beck & Rice, 1983;Tatalovich, 1975), though notably not in the U.S. Congress. These studies demonstrate that constituents recognize local candidates and value them electorally (Bowler et al., 1993;Jacobs & Munis, 2019;Johnson & Rosenblatt, 2006;Rice & Macht, 1987;Shugart et al., 2005;Stevens et al., 2018). ...
Expanding Constituency Support Through Shared Local Roots in U.S. House Primaries
Article
This paper addresses the enduring connection of localism and place-based roots shared between many elected leaders and their constituents, which previous work has either ignored or improperly specified. I argue that representatives of the U.S. House with these roots—meaning authentic, lived experience in their districts prior to their officeholding—sustain more supportive constituencies in primary election stage. Using an original 7-point index of local biographical characteristics of incumbents seeking renomination from 2002 to 2018, I find that deeply-rooted incumbents are less than half as likely to receive a primary challenge, and on average perform more than 5 percentage points better in their primary elections when they are challenged. These gains take place even after taking district partisanship, national political conditions, incumbent ideology, and other primary factors into account, and should induce scholars to reconsider the importance of local representation even amidst a nationalizing political culture.
View
... This phenomenon is essentially the advantage that candidates enjoy in the town, county, state, or other geographic area that the candidate currently calls home, compared to other areas in their electorate. Subsequent work has found general support for the friends-and-neighbors voting effect at different levels of government (Johnston et al. 2016;Lewis-Beck and Rice 1983;Tatalovich 1975). These works have found, for example, that constituents both recognize and value "local" candidates (Bowler, Donovan, and Snipp 1993;Jacobs and Munis 2019;Johnson and Rosenblatt 2007;Rice and Macht 1987;Shugart, Valdini, and Suominen 2005;Stevens et al. 2019). ...
Beyond Partisanship: Outperforming the Party Label with Local Roots in Congressional Elections
Article
  • Dec 2020
While factors like partisanship are increasingly decisive in congressional elections, they do not fully explain variation in constituency support between similarly situated incumbents. I argue that legislators’ reelection success is also influenced by the depth of their local, pre-Congress roots in the district they represent. I theorize that this local connection offers practical advantages to incumbents, such as built-in grassroots political infrastructure in their districts. Shared local identity also allows legislators to relate to their voters on a dimension that is uniquely suited to cross-cut partisanship and qualify them to represent their particular constituents. Therefore, I argue that local roots outperform their district’s partisan expectations – and more specifically, their party’s presidential nominees. Using an original dataset of nearly 3,000 House incumbents from 2002 to 2018 and novel measures of their preexisting local roots in their districts, I find that deeply rooted incumbents outperform their party’s presidential nominees in their districts by an average of about five additional points, even after controlling for partisanship and other crucial factors. I also find that this impact grows as the depth of local roots among a district’s voters increases. These results indicate that even in an era of congressional politics largely defined by partisanship and presidential loyalty, dyadic district connections like local ties can break through and affect legislators’ standing among their constituents.
View
Local Candidate Roots and Electoral Advantages in US State Legislatures
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2023
A growing literature has revealed a notable electoral advantage for congressional and gubernatorial candidates with deep local roots in their home districts or states. However, there is a dearth of research on the presence and impact of local roots in state legislative races. In this paper, we close that gap by demonstrating the consistent and significant electoral impacts that state legislators’ local roots have on their reelection efforts. We use data capturing a representative cross-section of state legislative incumbents ( N = ~5,000) and calculate a novel index measuring the depth of their local roots modeled after Hunt’s (2022, Home Field Advantage: Roots, Reelection, and Representation in the Modern Congress ) measure for the US House. We present evidence that state legislators with deep local roots in the districts they represent run unopposed in their general elections nearly twice as often as incumbents with no such roots. Of those who do attract challengers in their reelection efforts, deeply rooted incumbents enjoy an average of three extra percentage points of vote share. Our results have important implications for candidate emergence in state legislative elections during a time when so many are uncontested. They also demonstrate the limits of electoral nationalization for understanding state politics.
View
Understudied questions of Key's friends and neighbors voting thesis
Article
  • Aug 2021
Objectives This study addressesfour questions posed by V.O. Key's friends-and-neighbors (F&N) voting thesis that have been neglected in the scholarly literature. Methods Pooled regression of 101 primary and 66 general elections in Mississippi, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for the offices of U.S. senator and governor over the period 2002–2016 yielded a total of 11,263 candidate-county cases. Results F&N effects are most pronounced in primary elections, for Democratic candidates, and for nonincumbents. Also greater F&N effects for candidates whose “home” county populations were less well educated. The relative importance of F&N effects is displaced by social cleavage variables in elections where they are relevant to voter choices, namely general elections rather than primaries. Conclusion This study begs the larger question for future research of why F&N has greater effect for Democrats than Republicans and whether more Democrats tend to be low-information voters.
View
Local Candidates, Place-Based Identities, and Electoral Success
Article
Full-text available
While a large body of literature empirically documents an electoral advantage for local candidates, the exact mechanisms accounting for this effect remain less clear. We integrate theories on the political geography of candidate-voter relations with socio-psychological accounts of citizens’ local attachment, arguing that citizens vote for candidates from their own local communities as an expression of their place-based identity. To test our argument, we exploit a unique feature of the German mixed-member electoral system. We identify the causal effect of candidates’ localness by relying on within-electoral-district variation coupled with a geo-matching strategy on the level of municipalities ( $$\hbox {N}=11175$$ N = 11175 ). The results show that voters exhibit a strong bias in favor of local candidates even when they are not competitive. More than only expecting particularistic benefits from representatives, citizens appear to vote for candidates from their own local community to express their place-based social identity.
View
Effects of Common Campaign Appeals on Yard Signs Commitments: Exploratory Analysis of Three Field Experiments
Article
  • Apr 2021
This study explores the effect of common broad appeals on a regular campaign activity: securing yard signs commitments. In 2013 and 2014, volunteers delivered three messages (hometown, policy [public safety], and partisan) to registered voters across three local races (Democratic municipal, Democratic state legislative, and Republican municipal) in a North-eastern state. Voters exposed to the hometown message were more likely to make an immediate commitment to display a yard sign than those exposed to a partisan appeal (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.01–2.04). This effect held for the Republican municipal setting only (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.06–4.33). An appeal that taps into the “friends and neighbors” theory may increase the odds of commitment and may be effective within certain campaign settings.
View
Place‐based Identity and Framing in Local Environmental Politics
Article
  • Mar 2021
Framing has long been a central construct in scholarship on the role of rhetoric and discourse in the policy process. Research on policy framing and identity thus far has neglected the role of place‐based identity, focusing instead on identity constructs such as race, class, gender, and ethnicity. Through a mixed methods analysis of transcripts of City Council meetings in Philadelphia from 2007 to 2017, we analyze how policy makers, local interest groups, and national/regional interest groups employ place‐based framing to define, explain, and propose solutions to environmental problems. We contrast local place‐based frames with more abstract global frames that center arguments for policy change on the national or global implications of environmental problems. Our results reveal that place‐based framing is a dominant mode of discourse in Philadelphia environmental policy discussions and that actors may employ frames strategically so as to appeal to place‐based identities and to further political goals.
View
Efekt souseda a jeho vliv na volební chování v českých parlamentních volbách
Thesis
Full-text available
  • Jul 2020
This diploma thesis examines, among other things, differences in the strength of the friends and neighbours effect between candidates from different political parties and in different regions of Czechia. Quantitative research has shown greater local strength and spatial extent of friends and neighbours effect for leading candidates from non-metropolitan areas who have experiences from local or regional politics, such as mayors or regional councilors. In the 2017 parliamentary elections, the friends and neighbours effect mostly influenced the spatial patterns of electoral support of the KDU-ČSL and the STAN movement and on the other hand, it was hardly noticeable in conjunction with the SPD candidates.
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.