 |
Decomposing State Ideology
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
2
Decomposing State Ideology
State public opinion matters. The mean position of a state’s citizenry, as
measured by public opinion questions aggregated to the state level, frequently matches state policies in a wide variety of areas (Erikson, Wright, and McIver 1993; Wright Erikson and McIver 1987, Hill and Leighley 1992; Meier 1992; Nice 1991, 1992) and even influences the structure of state governments, such as in the case of the prevalence of female state legislators (Aceneaux 2001). Thus, we know much about the consequences of state public opinion. We know less about the sources of state- level opinion.
The mean position of a state’s citizenry is governed, in part, by the demographic
composition of the electorate. Early attempts to simulate state public opinion were generated by using the opinion of groups taken from national polls and weighting them based on a group’s size in the state (Weber et al. 1972-73). This methodology, however, assumes that each group’s ideological positions are uniform across the 50 states. This may not be the case, as group members are influenced by states’ political histories, cultures and other groups in the state. A second genre simply substitutes the size of a group in the state as a surrogate for group preferences (e.g., Berkman and O’Connor, 1993). This procedure also assumes a uniform position for group members across states. However, a number of theoretical and empirical studies point to the importance of interactions between the various groups in policy outcomes or public prefe rences (Hero 1998; Hero and Tolbert 1996; Wilcox, Cook and Jelen 1993).
This paper takes a more direct approach to the influence of demographic groups
on state public opinion. By pooling the 1996, 1998 and 2000 exit polls a sufficiently large data set allows for a division of state electorates by various demographic groups. Demographic group positions are measured directly. From this, a measure is constructed that indicates the overall effect of a group on the state’s mean ideological position, i.e., whether the group presence makes a state’s electorate more or less conservative. This impact of a group on state public opinion is dependent upon the ideological distinctiveness of the group and the size of the group.
Data
In recent decades, state public opinion is measured most frequently by pooling
surveys. Wright, Erikson and McIver (1985) began the trend by pooling the 1974 to 1982 CBS News/New York Time national surveys. The ir methodology produced indicators for partisanship and ideology for the 48 contiguous states. Norrander (2001) and Norrander and Jones (1996) demonstrated that the Senate National Election Surveys could be pooled to produce reliable state-level measures for a number of specific issues as well as partisanship and ideology for all 50 states. Brace, Sims-Butler, Arceneaus and Johnson (2002) pooled the General Social Surveys to create nine indicators of state public opinion.
|
| | Authors: Norrander, Barbara. |
|
| |
|
|
2
Decomposing State Ideology
State public opinion matters. The mean position of a state’s citizenry, as
measured by public opinion questions aggregated to the state level, frequently matches
state policies in a wide variety of areas (Erikson, Wright, and McIver 1993; Wright
Erikson and McIver 1987, Hill and Leighley 1992; Meier 1992; Nice 1991, 1992) and
even influences the structure of state governments, such as in the case of the prevalence
of female state legislators (Aceneaux 2001). Thus, we know much about the
consequences of state public opinion. We know less about the sources of state- level
opinion.
The mean position of a state’s citizenry is governed, in part, by the demographic
composition of the electorate. Early attempts to simulate state public opinion were
generated by using the opinion of groups taken from national polls and weighting them
based on a group’s size in the state (Weber et al. 1972-73). This methodology, however,
assumes that each group’s ideological positions are uniform across the 50 states. This
may not be the case, as group members are influenced by states’ political histories,
cultures and other groups in the state. A second genre simply substitutes the size of a
group in the state as a surrogate for group preferences (e.g., Berkman and O’Connor,
1993). This procedure also assumes a uniform position for group members across states.
However, a number of theoretical and empirical studies point to the importance of
interactions between the various groups in policy outcomes or public prefe rences (Hero
1998; Hero and Tolbert 1996; Wilcox, Cook and Jelen 1993).
This paper takes a more direct approach to the influence of demographic groups
on state public opinion. By pooling the 1996, 1998 and 2000 exit polls a sufficiently
large data set allows for a division of state electorates by various demographic groups.
Demographic group positions are measured directly. From this, a measure is constructed
that indicates the overall effect of a group on the state’s mean ideological position, i.e.,
whether the group presence makes a state’s electorate more or less conservative. This
impact of a group on state public opinion is dependent upon the ideological
distinctiveness of the group and the size of the group.
Data
In recent decades, state public opinion is measured most frequently by pooling
surveys. Wright, Erikson and McIver (1985) began the trend by pooling the 1974 to
1982 CBS News/New York Time national surveys. The ir methodology produced
indicators for partisanship and ideology for the 48 contiguous states. Norrander (2001)
and Norrander and Jones (1996) demonstrated that the Senate National Election Surveys
could be pooled to produce reliable state-level measures for a number of specific issues
as well as partisanship and ideology for all 50 states. Brace, Sims-Butler, Arceneaus and
Johnson (2002) pooled the General Social Surveys to create nine indicators of state
public opinion.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
