03474nam 22006614a 450 991082267470332120221107225808.01-281-72229-497866117222960-300-13003-110.12987/9780300130034(CKB)1000000000471921(StDuBDS)AH23049636(SSID)ssj0000144891(PQKBManifestationID)11132532(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000144891(PQKBWorkID)10147942(PQKB)10272590(DE-B1597)484877(OCoLC)952732236(DE-B1597)9780300130034(Au-PeEL)EBL3420018(CaPaEBR)ebr10170044(CaONFJC)MIL172229(OCoLC)923589753(MiAaPQ)EBC3420018(EXLCZ)99100000000047192120020108d2002 uy 0engur|||||||||||txtccrElectoral realignments[electronic resource] a critique of an American genre /David R. MayhewNew Haven, CT Yale University Press20021 online resource (192 p.)The Yale ISPS seriesBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph0-300-09336-5 Includes bibliographical references and index.Front matter --Contents --Acknowledgments --Introduction --Chapter 2. The Realignments Perspective --Chapter 3. Framing the Critique --Chapter 4. The Cyclical Dynamic --Chapter 5. Processes and Issues --Chapter 6. Policies and Democracy --Conclusion --IndexThe study of electoral realignments is one of the most influential and intellectually stimulating enterprises undertaken by American political scientists. Realignment theory has been seen as a science able to predict changes, and generations of students, journalists, pundits, and political scientists have been trained to be on the lookout for "signs" of new electoral realignments. Now a major political scientist argues that the essential claims of realignment theory are wrong-that American elections, parties, and policymaking are not (and never were) reconfigured according to the realignment calendar. David Mayhew examines fifteen key empirical claims of realignment theory in detail and shows us why each in turn does not hold up under scrutiny. It is time, he insists, to open the field to new ideas. We might, for example, adopt a more nominalistic, skeptical way of thinking about American elections that highlights contingency, short-term election strategies, and valence issues. Or we might examine such broad topics as bellicosity in early American history, or racial questions in much of our electoral history. But we must move on from an old orthodoxy and failed model of illumination.Yale ISPS series.Political partiesUnited StatesHistoryElectionsUnited StatesHistoryParty affiliationUnited StatesHistoryPolitical partiesHistory.ElectionsHistory.Party affiliationHistory.324/.0973Mayhew David R696724MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910822674703321Electoral realignments4066049UNINA