¹ The literature on this topic includes: Boyd, Richard W., “Presidential Elections: An Explanation of Voting Defection,” American Political Science Review, 63 (06, 1969), pp. 498–514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boyd, Richard W., “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Normal Vote Analysis of the 1968 Election,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), pp. 429–449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brody, Richard A., Page, Benjamin I., Verba, Sidney, and Laulicht, Jerome, “Vietnam, the Urban Crisis, and the 1968 Presidential Election: A Preliminary Analysis,” a paper prepared for the 1969 meeting of the American Sociological Association, 09, 1969 Google Scholar; Brody, Richard A. and Page, Benjamin I., “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue,” a paper prepared for delivery at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 09 7–11, 1971 Google Scholar; Brody, Richard A. and Page, Benjamin I., “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), pp. 450–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comparative State Election Project, Explaining the Vote: Presidential Choices in the Nation and the States, 1968 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Converse, Philip E., Clausen, Aage R., and Miller, Warren E., “Electoral Myth and Reality: The 1964 Election,” American Political Science Review, 59 (06, 1965), pp. 321–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., Rusk, Jerrold G., and Wolfe, Arthur C., “Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election,” American Political Science Review, 63 (12, 1969), pp. 1083–1105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Field, John Osgood and Anderson, Ronald E., “Ideology in the Public's Conceptualization of the 1964 Election,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 33 (Fall, 1969), pp. 380–398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fishbein, Martin and Coombs, Fred S., “Modern Attitude Theory and the Explanation of Voting Choice,” a paper prepared for delivery at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 09 7–11, 1971 Google Scholar; Flanigan, William H., Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972)Google Scholar; Hetrick, Carl C., “Issues and Politics: An Exploration in Policy-Motivated Political Behavior,” a paper prepared for the 1968 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 09 2–7, 1968)Google Scholar; Kessel, John H., The Goldwater Coalition: Republican Strategies in 1964 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968)Google Scholar; Kessel, John H., “Pennsylvania, 1968: Analysis of a Belief System,” a paper prepared for delivery at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 04 29-05 1, 1971, Chicago, Illinois Google Scholar; Key, V. O. Jr., (with the assistance of Cummings, Milton C. Jr.,), The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960 (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Samuel A., “Political Attitudes and Behavior: Some Consequences of Attitudinal Ordering,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 14 (February, 1970), pp. 1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Samuel A., “Political Attitude Structure and Component Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (Fall, 1970), pp. 403–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kovenock, David M., Beardsley, Philip L., and Prothro, James W., “Status, Party, Ideology, and Candidate Choice: A Preliminary Theory-Relevant Analysis of the 1968 American Presidential Election,” a working paper prepared for the Eighth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Munich, Germany, 08 31-09 5, 1970 Google Scholar; Merelman, Richard M., “Electoral Instability and the American Party System,” The Journal of Politics, 32 (February, 1970), pp. 115–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Natchez, Peter B. and Bupp, Irvin C., “Candidates, Issues and Voters,” Public Policy, 1968, pp. 409–437 Google Scholar; Pierce, John C., “Party Identification and the Changing Role of Ideology in American Politics,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 14 (February, 1970), pp. 25–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pomper, Gerald M., “After Twenty Years: The Report of the APSA Committee on Political Parties,” a paper prepared for delivery at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, California, 09 8–12, 1970 Google Scholar; Pomper, Gerald M., “From Confusion to Clarity: Issues and American Voters, 1956–1968,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), pp. 415–428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; RePass, David E., “Issue Salience and Party Choice,” American Political Science Review, 65 (06, 1971), pp. 389–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, John P., “Public Reaction to Political Protest: Chicago, 1968,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (Spring, 1970), pp. 1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, Michael J., “Rational Political Man: A Synthesis of Economic and Social-Psychological Perspectives,” American Political Science Review, 63 (12, 1969), pp. 1106–1119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shanks, J. Merrill, “The Quality of Electoral Change, 1952–1964,” a paper prepared for delivery at the 1969 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, N.Y., 09 2–6, 1969 Google Scholar; Sperlich, Peter W., Conflict and Harmony in Human Affairs: A Study of Cross-Pressures and Political Behavior (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1971)Google Scholar; Stokes, Donald E., “Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency,” American Political Science Review, 60 (March, 1966), pp. 19–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weisberg, Herbert F. and Rusk, Jerrold G., “Dimensions of Candidate Evaluations,” American Political Science Review, 64 (12, 1970), pp. 1167–1185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weisberg, Herbert F. and Rusk, Jerrold G., “Perceptions of Presidential Candidates: A Midterm Report,” a paper presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 09 7–11, 1971 Google Scholar.

² Field and Anderson, “Ideology in the 1964 Election;” Kovenock, Beardsley and Prothro, “Status, Party, Ideology, and Candidate Choice;” Natchez and Bupp, “Candidates, Issues and Voters;” Pierce, “Changing Role of Ideology;” and RePass, “Issue Salience and Party Choice.

³ Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁴ Campbell et al., American Voter, chap. 8.

⁵ Campbell et al., American Voter, chap. 10.

⁶ Stokes, Donald E., Campbell, Angus, and Miller, Warren E., “Components of Electoral Decision,” American Political Science Review, 52 (06, 1958), pp. 367–387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Natchez and Bupp, “Candidates, Issues and Voters.”

⁸ Hetrick, “Issues and Politics.”

⁹ Field and Anderson, “Ideology in the 1964 Election.”

¹⁰ Converse, Philip E., “The Concept of a Normal Vote,” in Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., (New York: Wiley, 1966), chap. 2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Pierce, “Changing Role of Ideology.”

¹² Boyd, “Voting Defection.”

¹³ RePass, “Issue Salience and Party Choice.”

¹⁴ Shanks, “Quality of Electoral Change.”

¹⁵ Boyd, “Normal Vote Analysis of 1968 Election.”

¹⁶ Stokes, “Dynamic Elements of Contests for Presidency.”

¹⁷ Field and Anderson, “Ideology in the 1964 Election.”

¹⁸ Pierce, “Changing Role of Ideology.”

¹⁹ On centrality, see Newcomb, Theodore, Turner, Ralph, and Converse, Philip E., Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 141–145 Google ScholarPubMed; and Sperlich, Conflict and Harmony, chap. 6.

²⁰ The spatial metaphor rests upon the definition of “nucleus” as “a central point, group, or mass about which a gathering, concentration or accretion takes place” and “satellite” as “something attendant, subordinate or dependent.” I want to avoid the concept of “system” in discussing the cognitive structure of the average voter. It now appears there is too much inconsistency between the clusters, and too little ability to predict how a change in one cluster will affect other clusters, to justify the use of the system concept.

²¹ Price, Hugh Douglas, “Micro- and Macro-politics: Notes on Research Strategy” in Political Research and Political Theory, ed. Garceau, Oliver (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 121 Google Scholar.

²² Boyd, , “Voting Defection,” p. 510 Google Scholar.