Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:04:43.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Divided Senate Delegation Indicator of Realignment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2007

Tom Brunell
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Dallas
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine

Extract

In a research note written in 2005 and subsequently rejected by three leading political science journals as too speculative and not adequately statistically anchored, we sought to update Brunell and Grofman's 1998 research note in the APSR on divided Senate delegation by showing that we were right in predicting that, in the Senate election years taking place immediately after our original data analyses, the number of states with divided Senate delegations would continue to decline. It did: from 19 states in 1996 to 18 in 1998, way down to 13 in 2000 and remaining at that level until the most recent election in 2006. However, at the end of our 2005 paper we also say: “Unlike Brunell and Grofman (1998), though, we are not prepared to predict further decreases in the number of divided Senate delegations.”

Type
FORUM
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brunell, Thomas L., and Bernard Grofman. 1998. “Explaining Divided U.S. Senate Delegations, 1788–1996: A Realignment Approach.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 3919.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2002. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar