The Partisan Geographies of Sincere Crossover Voting Behavior: Evidence from North Carolina

Literature Cited

• Alvarez, R.M., and J. Nagler. 1997. Analysis of crossover and strategic voting. Social Science Working Paper 1019. California Institute of Technology Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, Pasadena, CA.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2000. A new approach for modelling strategic voting in multiparty elections. The British Journal of Political Science 30:57–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2002. Should I stay or should I go? Sincere and strategic crossover voting in California Assembly races. In California's open/blanket primary: A natural experiment in election dynamics, ed. B.E. Cain and E.R. Gerber, 107–23. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez, R.M., and B. Sinclair. 2012. Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: The effects of primary processes. Political Research Quarterly 65 (3): 544–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ananat, E.O., and E. Washington. 2009. Segregation and black political efficacy. Journal of Public Economics 93:807–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrington, T.S., and B. Grofman. 1999. Party registration choices as a function of the geographic distribution of partisanship: A model of “hidden partisanship” and an illustrative test. Political Geography 18:173–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Responsive Politics. 2013. 2010 race: North Carolina Senate. Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id = NCS2&cycle = 2010 (last accessed 16 May 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Citrin, J., E. Schickler, and J. Sides. 2003. What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections. American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 75–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cline, S. 2010. Burr re-elected in US Senate race. The Daily Tar Heel 3 November. http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2010/11/burr_reelected_in_us_senate_race (last accessed 12 March 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Collett, C. 2005. Bloc voting, polarization, and the panethnic hypothesis: The case of Little Saigon. The Journal of Politics 67 (3): 907–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, R. 2010. 2010 North Carolina senate race: Richard Burr vs. Elaine Marshall. Yahoo Voices 14 September. http://voices.yahoo.com/2010-north-carolina-senate-race-richard-burr-vs-elaine-6768938.html (last accessed 12 March 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Dyck, J.J., B.J. Gaines, and D.R. Shaw. 2009. The effect of local political context on how Americans vote. American Politics Research 37 (6): 1088–1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, R.S. 1971. The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity 3 (3): 395–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferejohn, J.A., and M.P. Fiorina. 1974. The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis. The American Political Science Review 68 (2): 525–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischel, W.A. 2001. The homevoter hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gimpel, J.G., J.J. Dyck, and D.R. Shaw. 2004. Registrants, voters, and turnout variability across neighborhoods. Political Behavior 26 (4): 343–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner, D.J. 2007. Ecological inference in Voting Rights Act disputes: Where are we now, and where do we want to be? Jurimetrics 47:115–67.
   Google Scholar
• Gronke, P., J. Hicks, and D.K. Toffey. 2009. N=1? The anomalous 2008 election and lessons for reform. Paper presented at the APSA 2009 meeting, Toronto. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1451900 (last accessed 13 December 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Harder, J., and J.A. Krosnick. 2008. Why do people vote? A psychological analysis of the causes of voter turnout. Journal of Social Issues 64 (3): 525–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highton, B. 2000. Residential mobility, community mobility, and electoral participation. Political Behavior 22 (2): 109–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R.R. 1979. Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science 23 (3): 579–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R., and J. Sprague. 1987. Networks in context: The social flow of information. American Political Science Review 81:1197–1216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 1995. Citizens, politics, and social communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. 1974. Local effects in voting at a local election. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64 (3): 418–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2005. American electoral geography: Same roots and same goals, but different means and ends? The Professional Geographer 57 (4): 580–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R., C.J. Pattie, D.F. L. Dorling, I. MacAllister, H. Tunsall, and D.J. Rossiter. 2001. Social locations, spatial locations and voting at the 1997 British general election: Evaluating the sources of Conservative support. Political Geography 20:85–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R., C. Propper, R. Sarker, K. Jones, A. Bolster, and S. Burgess. 2005. Neighbourhood social capital and neighbourhood effects. Environment and Planning A 37:1443–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judis, J., and R. Teixeira. 2002. The emerging democratic majority. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• King, G. 1997. A solution to the ecological inference problem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klinkner, P.A., and A. Hapanowicz. 2005. Red and blue déjà vu: Measuring political polarization in the 2004 election. The Forum 3 (2): Article 2.
   Google Scholar
• Kousser, T. 2002. Crossing over when it counts: How the motives of voters in blanket primaries are revealed by their actions in general elections. In California's open/blanket primary: A natural experiment in election dynamics, ed. B.E. Cain and E.R. Gerber, 143–70. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leib, J., and N. Quinton. 2011. On the shores of the “boribund backwater”?: Trends in electoral geography research since 1990. In Revitalizing electoral geography, ed. B. Warf and J. Leib, 9–27. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Leighley, J.E., and J. Nagler. 1992. Individual and systemic influences on turnout: Who votes? Journal of Politics 54 (3): 718–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggiotto, M.A., and J.E. Piereson. 1977. Partisan identificaiton and electoral choice: The hostility hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 21 (4): 745–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D.S., and N.A. Denton. 1988. The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67 (2): 281–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North Carolina State Board of Elections. 2010. Election results. Raleigh: North Carolina State Board of Elections. http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id = 69 (last accessed 12 March 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Orey, B.D., L.M. Overby, P.K. Hatemi, and B. Liu. 2011. White support for racial referenda in the Deep South. Politics and Policy 39 (4): 539–58.
   Google Scholar
• Pattie, C., P. Whiteley, R. Johnston, and P. Seyd. 1994. Measuring local campaign effects: Labour Party constituency campaigning and the 1987 general election. Political Studies 42:469–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, W.H., and P.C. Ordeshook. 1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha, R.R., and R. Espino. 2009. Racial threat, residential segregation, and the policy attitudes of Anglos. Political Research Quarterly 62 (2): 415–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenstone, S.J. 1982. Economic adversity and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science 26 (1): 25–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sides, J., J. Cohen, and J. Citrin. 2002. The causes and consequences of crossover voting in the 1998 California elections. In California's open/blanket primary: A natural experiment in election dynamics, ed. B.E. Cain and E.R. Gerber, 77–106. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tenn, S. 2007. The effect of education on voter turnout. Political Analysis 15 (4): 446–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warf, B., and J. Leib, eds. 2011. Revitalizing electoral geography. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Wekkin, G.D. 1988. The conceptualization and measurement of crossover voting. The Western Political Quarterly 41 (1): 105–14.
   Google Scholar
• Withers, S.D. 2001. Quantitative methods: Advancement in ecological inference. Progress in Human Geography 25 (1): 87–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfinger, R.E., and S.J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar