Polarization and the Nationalization of State Legislative Elections
| Author | Jesse Richman,Joshua N. Zingher |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18788050 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
American Politics Research
2019, Vol. 47(5) 1036 –1054
Polarization and the
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Nationalization of State
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18788050
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X18788050
journals.sagepub.com/home/apr
Legislative Elections
Joshua N. Zingher1 and Jesse Richman1
Abstract
The electoral fortunes of state parties are partly shaped by the positions
adopted by national parties. This creates the potential dilemma: The position
that is best for the national party might be too extreme for the electorate
in some states. Some state parties attempt to address this problem by
adopting more moderate positions than their national-level counterparts.
We argue that the efficacy of state party moderation hinges on the degree of
polarization at the national level. We develop theory and examine empirical
evidence that higher relative polarization at the national level exacerbates the
degree to which national party positions and loyalties determine outcomes
in U.S. state elections. When relative national polarization is high, we find
evidence that state legislative election outcomes are determined by states’
orientations toward the national parties rather than the positions taken by
state legislative parties.
Keywords
state politics, elections, polarization, federalism
In November 2016, Republicans seized control of the lower chamber of the
Kentucky legislature for the first time in nearly 100 years, and the chairper-
son of the Kentucky Democratic Party blamed national politics. “It was
1Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joshua N. Zingher, Old Dominion University, 7000 Batten Arts and Letters, Norfolk, VA
23529, USA.
Email: jzingher@odu.edu
Zingher and Richman
1037
extremely difficult for any Kentucky Democrat to overcome the Trump tide”
(Loftus, 2016). Although scholars have long noted the influence of national
electoral conditions on state election outcomes (e.g., Chubb, 1988; Makse,
2014), this leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, Ronald Reagan’s
1984 margin in the state of 60% was only slightly smaller than Trump’s 2016
margin, yet the Kentucky Democrats’ majority in state legislature was not in
doubt. Why did Kentucky Democrats overcome Reagan but not Trump?
While regional realignment might be a proximate explanation, our study sug-
gests that a complementary answer to puzzles of this sort lies in the interac-
tion between state and national party polarization and party position taking.
U.S. national party polarization has been increasing for decades (Hare &
Poole 2014; McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal, 2006). There has been a similar
trend toward increased polarization in many—but not all—states (Shor &
McCarty, 2011). This article asks how increased national polarization has
altered politics in the U.S. states and whether aspects of the politics of par-
ticular states (e.g., party positioning) conditioned the impact of the national
pattern. There is evidence that the national- and state-level parties have
become increasingly ideologically homogeneous (Wright, 2016; Wright &
Birkhead, 2014) which suggests that one response to increased national
polarization may be a washing-out of state-level differences in the party
coalitions. There is also evidence that individuals have an easier time identi-
fying which party best reflects their policy orientations when the choices they
are presented with are distinct because of polarization (Levendusky, 2010;
Smidt, 2017; Zingher & Flynn, 2018). David R. Jones (2015) finds evidence
that increasing partisan polarization in Congress has increased the impor-
tance of evaluations of Congress for perceptions of the party’s brand and has
increased the influence of congressional performance evaluations on partisan
seat change in state legislatures.
Our analysis builds upon these insights with evidence for a dynamic inter-
action—National (and state) polarization conditions national influence on
state legislative elections. We argue that increased national polarization will
increase the weight placed upon national party positions when voters make
choices in state elections. We then present aggregate evidence from state
election outcomes extending from 1994 to 2014 (and from 1941 to 2014 with
less detailed measures) that shows strong evidence for the expected patterns.
Theory and evidence indicate that increased national polarization (and the
degree to which national parties are more polarized than state parties)
increases the role of the national party alignment in voter choices and under-
mines state party efforts to win on the basis of distinctive policy positions.
Where national party polarization dominates, support for national party can-
didates strongly predicts state legislative electoral choices.
1038
American Politics Research 47(5)
The State Party Versus the National Party
In many federal systems including the United States, the same parties com-
pete for office at both state/province and national levels (Filippov, Ordeshook,
& Shvetsova, 2004; Riker, 1964). These political parties have reputations,
both for policy positions and policy consequences (McDonald & Budge,
2005; Petrocik, 1996). Voters vote, at least partly, on the basis of the parties’
policy positions (Jones, 2015; Shor & Rogowski, 2018; Woon & Pope, 2008).
Voting on the basis of overall party positions (as opposed to candidate posi-
tions) appears to be most prominent when voters have less information about
candidate policy stances (Jessee, 2012; Woon & Pope, 2008). Hence, because
state legislative elections are typically limited information affairs in which
voters can rarely name their representatives (Kurtz, Rosenthal, & Zukin,
2003) or hold their representatives accountable for votes (Rogers, 2017), vot-
ers often rely on simpler cues like party affiliation and party positions.
The tension this article turns on is between state and national party policy
positions. Conflicts of interest between national and state branches of a
party arise when the party reputation, issue positions, and consequent poten-
tial electoral coalition best calculated to produce success at the national level
are rejected by many state voters. Rhode Island Republicans would arguably
have been in a better position to win elections in recent decades if RI was
less solidly Democratic in national elections, and Utah Democrats would
have been more competitive were UT less reliably Republican in national
elections.
Figure 1 illustrates the concept and provides a starting point for theoretical
argument. RN and DN signify national party policy-position in ideological
space and rS and rS represent state positions. If voters choose based on national
positions, then some voter (V*N) located near the midpoint between the RN
and DN positions will be indifferent, and voters to the left of V*N will gener-
ally vote for party D. Similarly, if vote choices are determined by state (ds and
rs) positions, then a different voter (v*s) near the midpoint between state party
positions will be indifferent, and voters to the left of this voter (v*s) will vote
for party D. Whether state or national party position positions guide voter
choice clearly matters. Votes cast by those in the shaded region (V*N, v*s) of
Figure 1 will depend on the relative influence of state versus national party
policy positions, which could decide election outcomes.1
Theoretical Expectations Concerning Polarization
What will affect the weight on national versus state party positions when it
comes to state legislative elections? Our theoretical expectations concern the
Zingher and Richman
1039
DN dS RN rS
Potential D national coalition voters
Potential D state coalition voters
Figure 1. National versus state party positions and vote share.
Note. For voters between V*N and v*s, party preference will depend upon whether more
weight is put on the national or state party policy reputation.
impact of national polarization and the ways in which state party polarization
and moderation interact with national polarization. We argue that there are
multiple reasons to expect increased national polarization, and increased
national polarization relative to state polarization, to lead voters to place
more weight on national party positions when making choices in state legisla-
tive elections: awareness of party positions, voter decisions to award party
identification and loyalty, and voters hedging risks as they aggregate infor-
mation on state and national party positions.
The simplest mechanism is awareness. National party positions get heavy
coverage under conditions of high national polarization, because national
positions are salient voters are more likely to be aware of national differences
(Hopkins, 2018). Hence, national positions will drive choice more under con-
ditions of high national polarization. This pattern is likely stronger when state
parties are less polarized and their positions are consequently less clearly
drawn. Some voters may simply be unaware of state party positions. A state
party may have developed positions that would appeal to a voter, but if the
voter does not know he or she cannot respond.
The decision to assign party affiliation or identification and consequent
party loyalty to a single party is also likely responsive to changing...
To continue reading
Request your trial