Political scientists for some time have questioned the value of party identification in the British context. The most popular objection has been that party identification appears to be less stable and less independent from the vote in Great Britain than in the United States. We attempt to demonstrate that the first objection is based on strong assumptions about how to deal with minor party identifiers and independents while the second can be disputed by showing that short-term forces, and not just measurement error, cause party identification and the vote to covary imperfectly. The analysis is carried out with the original Butler and Stokes data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ARSENAEU, R. B. and R. E. WOLFINGER (1973) “Voting behavior in congressional elections.” Presented at the meetings of the American Political Science Association, August.
2.
BUDGE, I., I. CREWE., and D. FARLIE (1976) Party Identification and Beyond. New York: John Wiley.
3.
BUTLER, D. and D. STOKES (1969) Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martinapos;s.
4.
CAMPBELL, A., P. E. CONVERSE, W. E. MILLER, and D. E. STOKES (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
5.
CAMPBELL, B. (1974) “The future of the Gaullist majority.”Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.18 (February): 67–94.
6.
CREWE, I., B. SARLVIK., and J. ALT (1977) “Partisan dealignment in Britain 1964–1974.”British J. of Pol. Sci.7 (April): 129–190.
7.
HANUSHEK, E. A. and J. E. JACKSON (1977) Statistical Methods For Social Scientists. New York: Academic.
8.
SNIDERMAN, P. M., H. D. FORBES, and I. MELZER (1974) “Party loyalty and electoral volatility: a study of the Canadian party system.”Canadian J. of Pol. Sci.8 (June): 268–288.
