LEADER 03474nam 22006614a 450 001 9910777851703321 005 20221107225808.0 010 $a1-281-72229-4 010 $a9786611722296 010 $a0-300-13003-1 024 7 $a10.12987/9780300130034 035 $a(CKB)1000000000471921 035 $a(StDuBDS)AH23049636 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000144891 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11132532 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000144891 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10147942 035 $a(PQKB)10272590 035 $a(DE-B1597)484877 035 $a(OCoLC)952732236 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780300130034 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3420018 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10170044 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL172229 035 $a(OCoLC)923589753 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3420018 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000471921 100 $a20020108d2002 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aElectoral realignments$b[electronic resource] $ea critique of an American genre /$fDavid R. Mayhew 210 $aNew Haven, CT $cYale University Press$d2002 215 $a1 online resource (192 p.) 225 1 $aThe Yale ISPS series 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 0 $a0-300-09336-5 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $tFront matter --$tContents --$tAcknowledgments --$tIntroduction --$tChapter 2. The Realignments Perspective --$tChapter 3. Framing the Critique --$tChapter 4. The Cyclical Dynamic --$tChapter 5. Processes and Issues --$tChapter 6. Policies and Democracy --$tConclusion --$tIndex 330 $aThe study of electoral realignments is one of the most influential and intellectually stimulating enterprises undertaken by American political scientists. Realignment theory has been seen as a science able to predict changes, and generations of students, journalists, pundits, and political scientists have been trained to be on the lookout for "signs" of new electoral realignments. Now a major political scientist argues that the essential claims of realignment theory are wrong-that American elections, parties, and policymaking are not (and never were) reconfigured according to the realignment calendar. David Mayhew examines fifteen key empirical claims of realignment theory in detail and shows us why each in turn does not hold up under scrutiny. It is time, he insists, to open the field to new ideas. We might, for example, adopt a more nominalistic, skeptical way of thinking about American elections that highlights contingency, short-term election strategies, and valence issues. Or we might examine such broad topics as bellicosity in early American history, or racial questions in much of our electoral history. But we must move on from an old orthodoxy and failed model of illumination. 410 0$aYale ISPS series. 606 $aPolitical parties$zUnited States$xHistory 606 $aElections$zUnited States$xHistory 606 $aParty affiliation$zUnited States$xHistory 615 0$aPolitical parties$xHistory. 615 0$aElections$xHistory. 615 0$aParty affiliation$xHistory. 676 $a324/.0973 700 $aMayhew$b David R$0696724 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910777851703321 996 $aElectoral realignments$93845513 997 $aUNINA