¹ See, for example, Regenstreif, Peter, The Diefenbaker Interlude (Toronto, 1965Google Scholar), esp. chap. 4; and Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York, 1964Google Scholar), chap. 2.

² Mallory, J. R., “The Structure of Canadian Politics,” in Thorburn, Hugh G., ed., Party Politics in Canada (Scarborough, 1967), 28–9.Google Scholar

³ Dawson, R. MacGregor, The Government of Canada (Toronto, 1956), 226.Google Scholar

⁴ J. M. Beck and D. J. Dooley, “Party Images in Canada,” in Thorburn, Party Politics in Canada, 82.

⁵ Alford argues that the party leader is more important in non-class based political systems such as Canada than in class based political systems such as Great Britain and Australia. See Alford, Robert R., Party and Society (Chicago, 1963), 281.Google Scholar Though Alford's argument differs from ours, the common conclusion is that the party leader is a focal point of the system, and that his public image has an important effect on voter behaviour.

⁶ The breakdown of responses and non-responses for the original sample of 900 is as follows: original sample (five from each polling station), 900; completed interviews with persons intending to vote, 59 per cent; contacted, but refused to be interviewed, 11 per cent; not voting (sick, moved, ineligible, will not vote), 9 per cent; not at home after at least two call-backs, 21 per cent. Interviewing only those who intended to vote had two effects on the sample. First, this reduced the response rate (that is, by as much as 9 per cent). Second, it resulted in a sample that was in some respects unrepresentative of the general population of Hamilton. For example, the sampling procedures favoured the inclusion of older voters, particularly the 41–60 age group, since they are more likely to vote than younger individuals. Similarly, there is likely a bias towards higher class voters.

⁷ This interviewing procedure had the advantage of directly determining positive or negative affect towards a candidate, while at the same time permitting the richness of an open-ended question. The answers to the open-ended questions were coded into various dimensions useful in describing the type of appeal each leader had for the voters.

⁸ Campbell et al., The American Voter, 25.

⁹ See Beck, J. Murray, Pendulum of Power: Canada's Federal Election (Scarborough, 1968), 405.Google Scholar

¹⁰ While only 10 per cent of the respondents failed to characterize each of the three party leaders as favourable, unfavourable, or in between, 50 to 60 per cent were unwilling or unable to express the basis of their perceptions. It may be disappointing, but it should not be surprising, that the average citizen is unable to articulate the causal underpinnings of his political beliefs. Politics has been shown to have low salience for many people. The respondent may like or dislike a political personality for a reason that seems silly or irrelevant (which causes him not to answer), or he may honestly not know why he feels as he does about the man.

¹¹ For example, see Walker, John and Phillips, Bruce, “Newsmen Forecast Trudeau Majority,” Special to the Spectator, Hamilton, June 18, 1968.Google Scholar

¹² The persons favourable to Stanfield in the three categories of relative interest were as follows: more 38 per cent, same 39 per cent, less 36 per cent; for Douglas: more 44, same 48, and less 54 per cent.

¹³ For further discussion, see Beck, Pendulum of Power, 399–419.

¹⁴ Respondents could name more than one issue. Of the total sample, 14 per cent declined to mention any issue.

¹⁵ Duverger, Maurice, The Political Role of Women (Paris, 1955), 50–67.Google Scholar

¹⁶ A subsidiary hypothesis states that Trudeau was especially appealing to young female voters. When sex is controlled, we find that among those voters under twenty-six, Trudeau's image is more favourable to men than to women – 61 per cent versus 50 per cent (N = 31 and 44 respectively).

¹⁷ See Alford, Robert R., “The Social Bases of Political Cleavage in 1962,” in Meisel, John, ed., Papers on the 1962 Election (Toronto, 1964Google Scholar).

¹⁸ Lipset, Seymour M., Agrarian Socialism (Garden City, 1968), 201.Google Scholar See also Zakuta, Leo, A Protest Movement Becalmed (Toronto, 1964), esp. 30–1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Anderson, Grace M., “Voting Behaviour and the Ethnic-Religious Variable: A Study of a Federal Election in Hamilton, Ontario,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32 (1966), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Ethnic origin was measured by the question, “Originally, where did your father and mother come from?” Where different, the father's origin was used.

²¹ Wilson, John, “Politics and Social Class in Canada: The Case of Waterloo South,” this JOURNAL, I, 3 (Sept. 1968), 288–309.Google Scholar

²² The variables education, income, and occupation, were used singly as indicators of social class.

²³ In a 1965 study Meisel found 77 per cent of the voters to identify with one of the four major parties. For a reference to this unpublished study, see Kornberg, Allan, Smith, Joel, and Bromley, David, “Some Differences in the Political Socialization Patterns of Canadian and American Party Officials: A Preliminary Report,” this JOURNAL, II, 1 (March 1969), 74.Google Scholar

²⁴ The relationship between social class variables (income, education, and occupation) and intended vote among uncommitted voters was tested, and statistical significance was obtained only in the case of income and vote (x² < .02). The Liberal vote was evenly spread through all classes, while the PC vote was proportionately greater in the $10,000 to $15,000 income range, and the NDP drew from those uncommitted voters in the $4,000 to $7,000 bracket. If income is used alone as a measure of social class, it appears that social class has some systematic impact on the voting preferences of uncommitted voters. For elaboration on this point see Cunningham, and Winham, , “Comparative Urban Voting Behavior: Canada and the United States,” a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, Sept. 1969.Google Scholar