NOTES
- Robert R. Alford, “Class Voting in the Anglo-American Political Systems,” in S.M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, (eds.) Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: Free Press, 1967), p. 81.
- Data for this paper were gathered as part of a Hamilton Election Study project initiated by the McMaster Political Science Students' Association. Dennis Harrison served as project co-ordinator, and Ron Shimizu, Angela Martinson and Murray Knox co-ordinated interviewing activities in the three constituencies. Approximately forty students and faculty members conducted the interviews.
- The U.S. data utilized in this study were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research. The Consortium bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.
- Deviations from mean vote within categories were performed on tables reorganized from Robert Alford, “The Social Bases of Political Cleavage in 1962,” in John Meisel, (ed.) Papers on the 1962 Election (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), pp. 210–13. See Table 5 of this paper and the footnote following for a discussion of the procedure used.
- Frank J. Sorauf, Political Parties in the American System (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964), Ch. 4., Angus Campbell et al., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley, 1960), Ch. 12, 13.
- Allan Kornberg, Canadian Legislative Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), Ch. 7., Robert Alford, Party and Society (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), pp. 250–54.
- John Porter, The Vertical Mosaic (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965), p. 373.
- Gad Horowitz, “Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32 (May, 1966), 143–71.
- Dennis Wrong, “The Pattern of Party Voting in Canada,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Summer, 1957), 252–64; Grace M. Anderson, “Voting Be-Haviour and the Ethnic-Religious Variable,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32 (February, 1966), 27–37; Alford, Party and Society, op. cit., p. 253; F.C. Englemann and M.A. Schwartz, Political Parties and the Canadian Social Structure (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 134.
- Cf. John Wilson, “Politics and Social Class in Canada: The Case of Waterloo South,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1 (September, 1968), 308.
- Leon Kamin, “Ethnic and Party Affiliations of Candidates as Determinants of Voting,” Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12 (1958), in John C. Courtney, (ed.) Voting in Canada (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 191–98; Howard Scarrow, “Three Dimensions of a Local Political Party,” in Meisel, (ed.) Papers on the 1962 Election, op. cit., pp. 53–67; Engelmann and Schwartz, op. cit., p. 225; John Meisel, “Religious Affiliation and Electoral Behaviour: A Case Study,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 22 (November, 1956) in Courtney, (ed.) op. cit., pp. 145–61; Pauline Jewett, “Voting in the 1960 Federal By-Elections at Peterborough and Niagara Falls,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 28 (February, 1962), 35–53; Anderson, op. cit.; Wilson, op. cit.
- Scarrow, op. cit., and Jewett, op. cit
- Peter Regenstreif, “Group Perceptions and the Vote: Some Avenues of Opinion Formation in the 1962 Campaign,” in Meisel, (ed.) Papers … op. cit., pp. 235–52; Wilson op. cit.; Robert Alford, in Meisel, (ed.) Papers …, op. cit
- Paul Lazarsfeld, et al., The People's Choice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968 edition), pp. 21–23; Bernard Berelson et al., Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 64–69; Angus Campbell et al, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley, 1960), p. 301.
- Raymond Wolfinger, “The Development and Persistence of Ethnic Voting, American Political Science Review, 59 (December, 1965), pp. 896–908; Robert Lane, Political Life (New York: Free Press, 1959), pp. 242–43. For an hypothesis of the transfer from ethnic to religious-based voting loyalties, see Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge: MIT Press and Harvard Press, 1963), p. 216.
- The Jews favor the Democrats by 4–1 in the U.S. sample, but since only six Jews turned up in the Canadian sample, this group was eliminated from the analysis for both countries.
- J.R. Mallory, “The Structure of Canadian Politics,” in High G. Thorburn, (ed.) Party Politics in Canada (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 28–29; J.M. Beck and D.J. Dooley, “Party Images in Canada,” Queens Quarterly, 67 (1960) in Thorburn, (ed.) op. cit., p. 82; R.M. Dawson, The Government of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956), p. 226; Peter Regenstreif, The Diefenbaker Interlude (Toronto: Longmans, 1965) especially Ch. 4; S. Peter Regenstreif, “Leadership and Ideology in the Canadian Party System,” revised mimeo of a paper presented at the 1964 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 12.
- Allan Kornberg, et al., “Some Differences in the Political Socialization Patterns of Canadian and American Party Officials,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2 (March, 19691, 74.
- Campbell, et al., The American Voter, op. cit., p. 139. Since these data reflect the 1952 and 1956 elections Republican party attachment is probably slightly overestimated while that of the Democrats slightly underestimated.
- Converse and Dupeux report that less than 45 per cent of a French sample readily classify themselves by party. Low identification seems to reflect a system of unstable parties rather than a system of many parties, for Campbell and Valen report similar percentages of identifiers in Norway and the United States. Philip Converse and Georges Dupeux, “Politicization of the Electorate in France and the United States,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (Spring, 1962), 4–23; Angus Campbell and Henry Valen, “Party Identification in Norway and the United States,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Winter, 1961).
- kornberg, et al., “Some Differences …” op. cit., p. 87 note that the main difference in the socialization of party workers in Canada and the United States is that for Canadians these events occur somewhat later in life.
- Angus Campbell, et al., The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1954), Ch. 9. Also, in discussing party defection, Boyd states, “In each of the three elections, [1956, 1960, 1964], attitudes toward the candidates explain the most variance in voting defection.” Richard W. Boyd, “Presidential Elections: An Explanation of Voting Defections,” American Political Science Review, 63 (June, 1969), p. 509.
- Campbell, et al., The American Voter, op. cit., pp. 54–63.
- For evidence of leader appeal related to voting behavior, see the references in footnote 17.
- L. Harris, “Election Polling and Research,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 22 (Spring, 1952), 108–116; Campbell et al., The American Voter, op. cit., pp. 143–45, though the data presented there do not clearly support the statement about interest.
- Robert Agger, “Independents and Party Identifiers: Characteristics and Behavior in 1952,” in Eugene Burdick and Arthur Brodbeck, (eds.) American Voting Behavior (Glencoe: Free Press, 1959), pp. 308–329.
- Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964), p. 6.
- Robert Riley and Thomas Pettigrew, “Workers,” Special to the Los Angeles Times, November 3, 1968. For a development of this hypothesis, see Peter Schrag, “The Forgotten American,” Harpers, 239 (August, 1969), 27–34.
- Walter Dean Burnham, “The Changing Shape of the American Political University,” American Political Science Review, 59 (March, 1965), 7–29.