(1) Easton, D., An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems, World Politics, IX (1957), pp. 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(2) The concepts of “interest articulation” and “interest aggregation” are discussed in detail by Almond, Gabriel, in Almond, G. and Coleman, J. S., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar

(3) For an attempt to develop this concept in detail, see Deutsch, Karl, Nationalism and Social Communication (New York, Wiley, 1953), pp. 100–101Google Scholar. For a fascinating analysis of the role of the mass media in such processes of political mobilization, see Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, the Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

(4) The term “political mobilization” is discussed by Rustow, D. A., Politics and Westernization in the Near East (Princeton, Center of International Studies, 1956), pp. 16–18Google Scholar. Comparative studies of the impact of mass suffrage in underdeveloped countries are essential for an understanding of factors making for integration or dissensus, cf. Mackenzie, W. J. M. and Robinson, K., eds., Five Elections in Africa (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Smith, T. E., Elections in Developing Countries (London, Macmillan, 1960)Google Scholar. A fascinating account of the effects of the introduction of a system of mass elections in a traditional, highly stratified society is Maquet, Jacques and d'Hertefelt, Marcel's Elections en société féodale: une étude sur l'introduction du vote populaire au Ruanda-Urundi (Bruxelles, Académie royale des sciences coloniales, 1959).Google Scholar

(5) The most remarkable single-nation study of such processes of change is Marshall, T. H.'s Citizenship and Social Class (London, Cambridge University Press, 1950).Google Scholar

(6) Almond, , op. cit., pp. 20–25.Google Scholar

(7) See particularly Berelson, B., Democratic Theory and Public Opinion, Publ. Op. Quart., XVI (1952), pp. 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berelson, B. et al. , Voting (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 314–317Google Scholar; Milne, R. S. and Mackenzie, H. C., Marginal Seat, 1955 (London, Hansard Society, 1958), ch. XIIIGoogle Scholar; Lane, R. E., Political Life (Glencoe, Free Press, 1959), pp. 340–348Google Scholar; Campbell, A. et al. , The American Voter (New York, Wiley, 1960), ch. xx.Google Scholar

(8) De la démocratie en Amérique (Paris, Gosselin, 1835), vol. I, chap. IV.Google Scholar

(9) Cf. particularly Gollwitzer, H., Der Cäsarismus Napoleons III im Widerhall der öffentlichen Meinung Deutschlands, Hist. Zs., CLXXIII (1952), pp. 23–76Google Scholar. For a detailed account of the electoral manipulations of the “masses” under the Second Empire, see Zeldin, Theodore, The Political System of Napoleon III (London, Macmillan, 1958).Google Scholar

(10) For the developments leading to the Second Reform Act, see particularly Seymour, Ch., Electoral Reform in England and Wales (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1916)Google Scholar; for the decision of the North German Federation, see Oncken, H., Historisch-politische Aufsätze u. Reden (München, Oldenbourg, 1914), vol. II, pp. 157–192Google Scholar. Gagel, W., Die Wahlrechtsfrage in der Geschichte der deutschen liberalen Parteien (Düsseldorf, Droste, 1959).Google Scholar

(11) The Times, 18 04 1883Google Scholar, quoted in McKenzie, R. T., British Political Parties (London, Macmillan, 1955), p. 147Google Scholar. The most recent discussion of the Conservative belief in the principle of “one man, one vote, one value” is in SirJennings, Ivor, Party Politics, I: Appeal to the People (Cambridge, The University Press, 1960), pp. 18–28.Google Scholar

(12) Augst, E. R., Bismarcks Stellung zum parlamentarischen Wahlrecht, (Diss. Leipzig, 1916)Google Scholar. Mayer, G., Bismarck u. Lassalle (Berlin, Dietz, 1929).Google Scholar

(13) Mayer, , op. cit., p. 36Google Scholar; Eyck, E., Bismarck, (Erlenbach-Zürich, Rentsch, 1945) vol. I, p. 601.Google Scholar

(14) Letter to Bismarck, , 13 01 1864Google Scholar; Mayer, , op. cit., p. 81.Google Scholar

(15) For a general review of these developments, see Meyer, Georg, Das parlamentarische Wahlrecht (Berlin, Haering, 1901), pp. 653–660Google Scholar, and Braunias, K., Das parlamentarische Wahlrecht (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1932), vol. II, pp. 35–45Google Scholar. On the Belgian law of 1893, see particularly Barthélémy, J., L'organisation du suffrage et l'expérience belge (Paris, Giard, 1912), chap. VI.Google Scholar

(16) Secondary sources: Seymour, Ch. and Frary, D. P., How the World Votes (Springfield, Mass., Nichols, 1918), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar. Braunias, , op. cit., vol. I.Google Scholar

(17) For the background of the regulations of 30 May, 1849, see most recently Boberach, H., Wahlrechtsfragen im Vormärz (Düsseldorf, Droste, 1959).Google Scholar

(18) For a collection of electoral curiosa indicating the low level of standardization, see Pilenco, A., Les maeurs du suffrage universel en France (Paris, Revue Mondiale, 1930).Google Scholar

(19) « Parlament und öffentliche Meinung », in Zur Geschichte und Problematik der Demokratie. Festgabe für H. Herzfeld (Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, 1958), p. 178.Google Scholar

(20) The formal history of the Anglo-Saxon systems is well covered in Wigmore, J. H., The Australian Ballot System (Boston, Boston Book Co, 1889)Google Scholar; Evans, E. D., A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1917)Google Scholar. On other systems, see Meyer, , Das parlamentarische Wahlrecht, op. cit., pp. 528–565Google Scholar, and Braunias, , op. cit., vol. II, pp. 168–174.Google Scholar

(21) See Seymour, , op. cit., pp. 434–435Google Scholar, and for details on the effect on the “vote market”, Hanham, H. J., Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone (London, Longmans, 1959), chap. XIII.Google Scholar

(22) This, of course, is the theme of Ostrogorski'S volumes. For a detailed account of developments in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, see Hanham, , op. cit.Google Scholar

(23) Tingsten's work on the behaviour of recently enfranchised groups needs to be completed and systematized on a variety of points. Quite particularly, it would be of great theoretical interest to undertake comparative analyses of the rate of “politicization” in the peripheral areas of each nation-state, the remote, less “modernized” areas of the national territory. This is a central concern in our current studies of electoral participation in Norway, to be reported on in Rokkan, S. and Valen, H. et al. , Valg i NorgeGoogle Scholar, now in preparation. We find clear evidence that women are least prone to vote in the less accessible, least politicized areas along the coast. It is of interest to note that similar differences in the rates for women appeared in German statistics just after the introduction of female suffrage, cf. Bremme, Gabriele, Die politische Rolle der Frau in Deutschland (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Rupert, 1956), p. 45Google Scholar, but have tended to disappear in post-war elections. This has been interpreted in terms of a process of “mobilization” by Faul, Erwin, in Faul, E., ed., Wahlen und Wähler in Westdeutschland (Villingen, Ring-Verlag, 1960), pp. 156–163.Google Scholar

(24) Political Parties (London, Methuen, 1954), ch. 11.Google Scholar

(25) Cf. Lasswell, H. D. et al. , The Comparative Study of Elites (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Marvick, D., ed., Political Decision-Makers: Recruitment and Performance (Glencoe, the Free Press, 1961)Google Scholar. Our Norwegian programme of research on parties, elections and political behaviour includes a study of the recruitment of candidates for the Storting: this gives particular emphasis to the analysis of the local contexts of recruitment.

(26) Examples: O. Rantala's work on the membership of the Conservative party in Finland, Konservatiivinen puolueyhteisö [The Conservative party community]. (Helsinki, Tammi, 1956)Google Scholar, Renate Mayntz's study of the CDU members in a district of Berlin, Parteiengruppen in der Grossadtt (Köln, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1959).Google Scholar

(27) Example: Valen, H. and Katz, D., An electoral contest in a Norwegian province, in Janowitz, M., ed., Community Power Systems (Glencoe, the Free Press, 1961), pp. 207–236.Google Scholar

(28) Attempts in this direction: Katz, D. and Eldersveld, S. J., “The Impact of Local Activity upon the Electorate”, Publ. Op. Quart., XXV (1961), 1–27Google Scholar; also Valen, and Katz, , op. cit.Google Scholar

(29) This, of course, will vary with the administrative structure and the population density of the country: figures for Finland and Norway indicate that up to 2% of any nationwide sample will be candidates for offices elections, see the article on “Finland” and “Norway and the United States of America”, in Rokkan, S., ed., Citizen participation in political life, Int. Soc. Sci. J., XII (1960), particularly pp. 31–32 and 81–84.Google Scholar

(30) Rokkan, S. and Campbell, A., Norway and the United States of America, in S. Rokkan, ed., op. cit.Google Scholar

(31) For a general discussion of concepts of “status-polarization”, see Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, ch. XIII.Google Scholar

(32) Rossi, P. H., Power and Community Structure, Midwest. N. J. Pol. Sci., IV (1960), pp. 390–401.Google Scholar

(33) This is the term introduced by Lenski, G. E., Amer, Sociol. Rev., XIX (1954), pp. 405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in this context it is synonymous with the term “status polarization” used elsewhere in this paper.

(34) Correlations by precinct between economic/ethnic indices and the Democratic vote have been found to be very high in such cities: see Rossi and Cutright, The Impact of Party Organization in an Industrial Setting, in Janowitz, M., ed., op. cit., pp. 81–116.Google Scholar

(35) Schulze, R. O., The Role of Economic Dominants in Community Power Structure, Am. Sociol. Rev., XXIII (1958), pp. 3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also: “The Bifurcation of Power in a Satellite City”, in Janowitz, M., ed., op. cit, pp. 19–80.Google Scholar

(36) For the U. S., see the secondary analyses of N.O.R.C. data by Wright, C. R. and Hyman, H. H., Voluntary Association Memberships of American Adults, Am. Social. Rev., XXIII (1958), pp. 284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Finland: Allardt, Erik et al. , On the Cumulative Nature of Leisure-Time Activities, Acta sociologica, III (1958), pp. 165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Germany: Reigzrotzski, E., Soziale Verflechtungen in der Bundesrepublik (Tübingen, Mohr, 1956)Google Scholar. For Norway: Rokkan, S., Electoral Activity, Party Membership and Organizational Influence, Acta sociologica, IV (1959), pp. 25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Sweden: Zetterberg, H., Voluntary Associations and Organized Power, Industrie, International (in press).Google Scholar

(37) Cf. Rose, A. M., Theory and Method in the Social Sciences (Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1954), ch. III.Google Scholar

(38) This point of view has been developed in further detail for Sweden by Zetterberg, H., op. cit.Google Scholar

(39) Polsby, N. W., Community Power and Political Theory, Ph. D. diss. Yale 1960Google Scholar, ch. VII, has suggested such a cyclical pattern for developments in U.S. cities since the peak inflows of ethnically distinct lower class citizens.

(40) Cf. especially Kirchheimer, Otto, The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes, Soc. Res., XXIV (1957), pp. 127–156Google Scholar; also Vulpius, Alex, Die Allparieien-regierung (Frankfurt a/M, Metzner, 1957).Google Scholar