We specify the level of polarization in a two-party legislature as an explicit function of three factors: (1) the ideological heterogeneity of district median voters, (2) the distance between candidates of different parties in the same or ideologically comparable districts, and (3) partisan bias in choosing between candidates equidistant from the median voter. Our key empirical finding, reinforced by two alternative methods of calculation, is that, while changes in each factor have contributed to the present day extremely high level polarization in the US House of Representatives, at least 80% of the growth in that polarization from 1956 through 2008 can be attributed to a dramatic increase in the second of these factors: party differentiation at the district level.
AdamsJ (2001) A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science31: 121–158.
2.
AdamsJMerrillSIIIGrofmanB (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AldrichJH (1983) A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review77: 974–990.
4.
AldrichJHMcGinnisMD (1989) A model of party constraints on optimal candidate positions. Mathematical and Computer Modeling12: 437–450.
5.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJStewartC (2001) Candidate positioning in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science45: 136–159.
6.
AransonPHOrdeshookPC (1972) Spatial strategies for sequential elections. In: NiemiRGWeisbergHF (eds) Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Columbus, OH: Charles E Merrill, pp. 298–331.
7.
Austen-SmithD (1984) Two-party competition with many constituencies. Mathematical Social Sciences7(2): 177–198.
8.
Austen-SmithD (1986) Legislative coalitions and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice50: 185–210.
9.
BafumiJHerronM (2010) Leapfrog representation and extremism: a study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review104(3): 519–542.
10.
BishopW (2008) The Big Sort. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
BrunellTLGrofmanB (2008a) The partisan consequences of Baker v. Carr and the one person, one vote revolution. In: HandleyLGrofmanB (eds) Redistricting in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
BrunellTLGrofmanB (2008b) Evaluating the impact of redistricting on district homogeneity, political competition, and political extremism in the US House of Representatives, 1962–2006. In: LeviMJohnsonJKnightJ. (eds) Designing Democratic Governments. New York: Russell Sage Publications.
13.
BrunellTLGrofmanBMerrillSIII (Forthcoming) Replacement in the US House: an outlier-chasing model. Party Politics.
14.
ButlerDM (2009) The effect of the size of voting blocs on incumbents’ roll-call voting and the asymmetric polarization of Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(3): 297–318.
15.
CameronCMEnelowJM (1992) Asymmetric policy effects, campaign contributions, and the spatial theory of elections. Mathematical and Computer Modelling16(8–9): 117–132.
16.
CioroianuI (2013) Candidate perceptions of political actors’ positions: projection effects in the 2012 US Congressional elections. In: Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, August 27–September 1, 2013.
17.
ColemanJS (1972) The positions of political parties in elections. In: NiemiRGWeisbergHF (eds) Probability Models of Collective Decision Making. Columbus, OH: Charles E Merrill, pp. 332–357.
18.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
19.
FeldSLGrofmanB (1988) Ideological consistency as a collective phenomenon. American Political Science Review82(3): 64–75.
20.
FiorinaMP (2006) Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
21.
GerberERMortonRB (1998) Primary election systems and representation. Journal of Law Economics & Organization14: 304–324.
22.
GrofmanBernardKoetzleWilliamMcDonaldMichaelBrunellThomas. 2000. A new look at split ticket voting for House and President: The comparative midpoints model, Journal of Politics, 62(1): 34–50.
23.
GrofmanB (2004) Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science7: 25–46.
24.
HinichMJMungerMC (1994) Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
HusseyWZallerJ (2011) Who do parties represent? In: EnnsPWlezienC (eds) Who Gets Represented?New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 311–344.
26.
KoetzleW (1998) The impact of constituency diversity upon the competitiveness of US House of Representatives elections, 1962–1996. Legislative Studies Quarterly23: 561–574.
27.
KogerGLeboM (2012) Strategic party government and the 2010 elections. American Politics Research40(5): 927–945.
28.
KrasaSPolbornM (2014) Policy divergence and voter polarization in a structural model of elections. Journal of Law and Economics57(1): 31–76.
29.
LaverMSergentiE (2012) Party Competition: An Agent-Based Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LeboMJMcGlynnAJKogerG (2007) Strategic party government: party influence in Congress, 1789–2000. American Journal of Political Science51: 464–481.
31.
LevenduskyM (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
MayhewD (2002) Electoral Realignments. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
McCartyNPooleKRosenthalH (2006) Polarized America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
McCartyNPooleKRosenthalH (2009) Does gerrymandering cause polarization?American Journal of Political Science53(3): 666–680.
35.
MerrillSIIIAdamsJ (2002) Centrifugal incentives in multicandidate elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics14: 273–300.
36.
MerrillSIIIGrofmanBBrunellTL (2008) Cycles in American national electoral politics, 1854–2004. American Political Science Review102(1): 1–17.
37.
MerrillSIIIGrofmanBBrunellTL (2014) Modeling the electoral dynamics of party polarization in two-party legislatures. Journal of Theoretical Politics26(4): 548–572.
38.
MillerGSchofieldN (2003) Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review97: 245–260.
39.
NoelH (2013) Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
OwenGGrofmanB (2006) Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: persistent divergence of party positions. Social Choice and Welfare26: 547–569.
41.
PalfreyT (1984) Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies51: 139–156.
42.
PooleKRosenthalH (1984) The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics46: 1061–1079.
43.
PooleKRosenthalH (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
TaageperaRGrofmanB (1985) Rethinking Duverger’s law: predicting the effective number of parties in plurality and PR systems – parties minus issues equals one. European Journal of Political Research13: 341–352.
45.
TheriaultS (2008) Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
WinerSKennyLGrofmanB (Forthcoming) Explaining variation in the degree of electoral competition in a mature democracy: US Senate elections 1922–2004. Public Choice.
47.
WittmanD (1973) Parties as utility maximizers. American Political Science Review67(3): 490–498.
48.
WittmanD (1977) Candidates with policy preferences: a dynamic model. Journal of Economic Theory14(1): 180–189.
49.
WittmanD (1983) Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternatives. American Political Science Review77(1): 142–157.
