“Political Identity and Party Polarization in the American Electorate” (with David C. Kimball & Bryce Summary). September, 2014. The State of the Parties (Rowman & Littlefield).

Summary:

Evidence of ideological polarization among party elites has fueled a debate about the degree of polarization among the American public. Much of the debate has focused on an ideological or policy-based definition of polarization. For example, there is clear evidence of “sorting,” an increasing correspondence between a voter’s party identification and ideological position on a left-right spectrum (Levendusky 2009). In addition, there is evidence showing that the policy preferences of average Democrats and Republicans have moved farther apart on several key issues, particularly among the most engaged segment of the electorate (Abramowitz 2010; Layman et al. 2010).

However, more attention should be given to psychological components of polarization that emphasize political identity. Increased partisan disagreement among politicians and activists has fostered a more attentive public and a stronger sense of political identity among mass partisans (Hetherington 2011). One consequence is increased party loyalty on Election Day (Bartels 2000). But heightened elite partisanship also encourages the public to view politics in zero-sum “us versus them” terms. Increased party conflict at the elite level invites mass followers to internalize the broad outlines of those conflicts and denigrate their political opponents more than in the past. For example, Alan Abramowitz writes that growing political polarization may “contribute to a tendency to demonize the opposing party and its supporters” (Abramowitz 2013, xv).

We test these arguments with survey data from the American National Election Studies. As party elites have become more ideologically polarized, mass partisans have become more polarized in their basic evaluations of the two major political parties. In particular, followers of both parties express increasing levels of fear and contempt toward the opposite party and its presidential candidates, with the 2012 election cycle producing record levels of out-party demonization. Polarized ratings of the two major parties have many roots, including party identity, ideology, core values, group-based attitudes, individual predispositions, and the growth in partisan media.



“News Attention to Voter Fraud in the 2008 and 2012 Elections” (with Jessica Curtis, Brian Fogarty, Patricia Gouzien, & David C. Kimball). May, 2015. Research and Politics.

Summary:

The nature and frequency of voter fraud figure prominently in many ongoing policy debates about election laws in the United States. Policy makers frequently cite allegations of voter fraud reported in the press during these debates. While recent studies find that voter fraud is a rare event, a substantial segment of the public believes that voter fraud is a rampant problem in the United States. It stands to reason that public beliefs are shaped by news coverage of voter fraud. However, there is very little extant academic research on how the news media, at any level, covers allegations or documented cases of voter fraud. This paper examines local newspaper attention to voter fraud in each of the 50 states during the 2008 and 2012 US elections. The results show that local coverage of voter fraud during the 2012 elections was greatest in presidential swing states and states that passed restrictive voting laws prior to the 2012 election. No evidence that newspaper attention is related to the rate of actual voter fraud cases in each state was found. The findings are consistent with other studies indicating that parties and campaigns sought to place voter fraud on the political agenda in strategically important states to motivate their voting base ahead of the election.