Introduction
This was my first ever major assignment for a Political Science class during my time at Virginia Tech, and the first Literature Review I ever wrote. This was for my Intro to Political Science class in the Fall 2021 semester, and will be the only content from that class I’ll be posting. It was submitted on November 17, 2021.
Assignment Directions
Q: How many pages should I write?
A: There is no maximum or minimum page limit. Each student’s topic is different, and length will vary based on individual writing styles, depth of analysis, and type of source used. As a general principle, you should focus on quality over quantity. But be sure you have provided a thorough analysis of your sources and have addressed all of the required components for an integrated literature review. Remember: you are not writing an essay on your opinion on your topic. Instead, you are analyzing the scholarly conversation that is occurring on your topic.
Q: Am I supposed to write a review for each source separately?
A: No. You are writing an integrated literature review of at least five scholarly sources, not single-source reviews. Recall that these are different types of literature reviews. Refer to your notes to understand the differences.
Q: What type of sources may I use?
A: You may use only scholarly, credible sources. You must use AT LEAST five sources. These sources include academic books, journal articles, government reports, and research reports. You may not use newspaper articles, magazine articles, websites, documentaries, think tank reports, or pop culture writing (blog sites, social media posts, etc.). Remember that you have access to thousands of peer-reviewed academic journals through the library’s databases. You shouldn’t have any problem locating quality sources.
Integrated Literature Review
Research Topic: State Legislative Elections
Research Question: Why has there been a decline in ticket-splitting in state legislatures between elections on the state legislative level and the presidential?
Down-ballot elections are always on the backburner of the mind of the American electorate, and state legislative elections are no exception. Elections for statewide and federal office dominate the airwaves, mailboxes and mainstream news coverage, so this should be no surprise. Still, this lack of focus on smaller elections can give way to unique ticket-splitting that is not seen on the federal level, with the issues for these elections being closer to home and therefore incumbency being stronger than it is for higher offices.
A great explanation of why this is can be used in the terms of “normal votes” vs. “personal votes” (Thomas M. Carsey, Jonathan Winburn and William D. Berry, 2017). Normal votes represent base support an incumbent receives in their own district, whereas personal votes are earned votes from voters who do not have the incumbent’s party as their preferred, but are satisfied enough with the job that they are doing that they’ll vote for the incumbent.
State legislative incumbents have a much easier time earning these votes than federal incumbents given their smaller constituencies. They’re easier to get in contact with and thus are more likely to have better constituency services than federal level incumbents.
However, the nationalization of our politics is trickling its way down to the state legislative level, and even popular incumbents who are able to earn many personal votes can’t withstand this trend forever. Nowadays, state legislative politics are more national than local (Steven Rogers, 2016), with presidential approval and performance in a legislative district becoming more and more of a predictor of the election result. Recent evidence to support Rogers’ research is the election result in New Jersey State Senate District 3 a few weeks ago, where 20-year incumbent and Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) lost to truck driver Edward Durr (R) in a district that voted for Donald Trump by 2 points last year (CNalysis, 2021). Four years ago, when Sweeney was running during the time of an unpopular Republican President in office, he won by 18 points, but in a year he had to run with an unpopular Democratic President in office, he lost by 3.
The aforementioned polarization of our politics has led to fewer voters willing to give the opposite party of their preference a chance as a result, even when longtime incumbents that voters usually cast personal votes for are on the ballot. Swing or “floating” voters (Corwin D. Smidt, 2017) that are constantly talked about by the mainstream media are disappearing as well, as they act more and more partisan in their vote choice, despite not explicitly identifying as a member of a party.
Different regions of the country have long had different ticket-splitting behaviors; even today, voters in New England tend to favor Republicans in down ballot elections while voters in Appalachia tend to favor Democrats in down ballot elections (CNalysis, 2021). Southern state legislatures tended to have less polarization (Hinchliffe and Lee, 2016), with residual effects still seen in places like West Virginia today. For example, there was an 88.73% ticket-split rate for the Democratic incumbent, Brent Boggs, in West Virginia House District 34 in 2020 between the races for State Representative and President (CNalysis, 2021).
Redistricting in adjunct to polarization has also played a role in the decline of ticket-splitting. Though differing political environments between each election make it harder to understand how much (VanderMolen and Milyo, 2016). The most recent example is the differing environments between the 2010 elections, which was a red tsunami against President Barack Obama resulting in many Republican gains, and two years later when Democrats gained seats in Congress and Barack Obama won re-election.
All in all, polarization has been the driving force behind the decline of ticket-splitting. The nationalization of our politics continues to trickle down to the local level as time goes on, making more and more elections a referendum on the President, strong incumbents be damned. Other factors like redistricting, the waning of swing voters and personal votes, and losses of incumbency have played a role as well, as scholars have noted.
References
- Carsey, T. M., Winburn, J., & Berry, W. D. (2017). Rethinking the Normal Vote, the Personal Vote, and the Impact of Legislative Professionalism in U.S. State Legislative Elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(4), 465–488. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26940195
- Rogers, S. (2016). National Forces in State Legislative Elections. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667, 207–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24756151
- Nuttycombe, C. W., III (Ed.). (2021, April 16). 2020 Presidential by Legislative District & Most Recent Election Result. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://cnalysis.com/maps/2020-presidential-by-legislative-district-and-most-recent-election-result/.
- Smidt, C. D. (2017). Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 365–381. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26384737
- Hinchliffe, K. L., & Lee, F. E. (2016). Party Competition and Conflict in State Legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(2), 172–197. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014912
- VanderMolen, K., & Milyo, J. (2016). Public Confidence in the Redistricting Process: The Role of Independent Commissions, State Legislative Polarization, and Partisan Preferences. State & Local Government Review, 48(4), 236–245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44653898