Political Science Faculty Database
Political Science
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > Political Science > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of John Aldrich    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
@book{fds333502,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Griffin, JD},
   Title = {Why Parties Matter Political Competition and Democracy in
             the American South},
   Pages = {318 pages},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {022649537X},
   Abstract = {Why Parties Matter argues that a competitive party system is
             essential in order to have the public's preferences and
             wants expressed and satisfied in elections.},
   Key = {fds333502}
}

@book{fds341785,
   Author = {Hershey, MR and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Party politics in America},
   Pages = {1-398},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781138683679},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315544427},
   Abstract = {The seventeenth edition of Party Politics in America
             continues the comprehensive and authoritative coverage of
             political parties for which it is known while expanding and
             updating the treatment of key related topics including
             interest groups and elections. Marjorie Hershey builds on
             the book’s three-pronged coverage of party organization,
             party in the electorate, and party in government and
             integrates contemporary examples-such as campaign finance
             reform, party polarization, and social media-to bring to
             life the fascinating story of how parties shape our
             political system. New to the 17th Edition Fully updated
             through the 2016 election, including changes in virtually
             all of the boxed materials, the chapter openings, and the
             data presented. Explores increasing partisan hostility, the
             status of voter ID laws and other efforts to affect voter
             turnout, young voters’ attitudes and participation, and
             the role of big givers such as the energy billionaire Koch
             brothers in the 2016 campaigns. Critically examines the idea
             that Super PACs are replacing, or can replace, the party
             organizations in running campaigns. New and expanded online
             Instructor’s Resources, including author-written test
             banks, essay questions, relevant websites with correlated
             sample assignments, the book’s appendix, and links to a
             collection of course syllabi.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781315544427},
   Key = {fds341785}
}

@book{fds249405,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Interdisciplinarity: Its Role in a Discipline-based
             Academy},
   Pages = {320 pages},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {August},
   ISBN = {0199331367},
   Abstract = {Their emergence at that time fundamentally altered how
             universities were constructed and how they did their
             business. It is the model on which the academy of the
             twenty-first century operates.},
   Key = {fds249405}
}

@book{fds249406,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Gomez, BT and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2012 Elections},
   Pages = {408 pages},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {April},
   ISBN = {1483323412},
   Abstract = {The 2012 edition, with its current scholarship and its
             excellent use and display of data, covers the most recent
             presidential and Congressional elections, voter turnout, and
             the social forces, party loyalties, and prominent issues
             that ...},
   Key = {fds249406}
}

@book{fds249482,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and McGraw, KM},
   Title = {Introduction to the volume},
   Pages = {4-8},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {December},
   ISBN = {9780691151458},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691151458.003.0001},
   Doi = {10.23943/princeton/9780691151458.003.0001},
   Key = {fds249482}
}

@book{fds249477,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Why Parties?: A Second look},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2011},
   Key = {fds249477}
}

@book{fds249476,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Change and continuity in the 2008 elections},
   Pages = {1-427},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781604265200},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483330846},
   Abstract = {One of the first texts to make use of the 2008 National
             Election Study results, this new edition of Change and
             Continuity will put the momentous recent elections into
             historical context for your students. Questions considered
             include: What were the impact of race and gender in this
             election cycle? How did fundraising during the invisible
             primary shape the nomination contest? To what extent did
             youth participation determine the outcome of the election?
             What effect did new media have on the campaign and voter
             turnout? What role did the economic crisis play in voters
             choices? Was 2008 a year for partisan realignment of the
             electorate? This well-respected author team delves deeply
             into each area, armed with an array of thorough, yet
             student-friendly data, graphics, and figures. As with all
             books in the Change and Continuity series, the authors
             present election data from a variety of sources in a
             straightforward, accessible manner and make sure to
             incorporate and discuss the most recent research.},
   Doi = {10.4135/9781483330846},
   Key = {fds249476}
}

@book{fds249475,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2008 Elections},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {978-1-60426-520-0},
   Key = {fds249475}
}

@book{fds249474,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, PR and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006
             Elections},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2008},
   ISBN = {978-0-87289-415-X},
   Key = {fds249474}
}

@book{fds309850,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Alt, L},
   Title = {A Positive Change in Political Science: The Legacy of
             Richard D. McKelvey’s Most Influential
             Writings},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {Aldrich, A and Lupia},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds309850}
}

@book{fds249473,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds249473}
}

@book{fds249472,
   Author = {Abramson, P and Rohde, DW and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2000 and 2002
             Elections},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds249472}
}

@book{fds249471,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 2000 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds249471}
}

@book{fds249470,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1996 and 1998
             Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Year = {1999},
   Key = {fds249470}
}

@book{fds18613,
   Author = {J.H. Aldrich and Paul Abramson and David
             Rohde},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1996 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds18613}
}

@book{fds249468,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political
             Parties in America},
   Publisher = {Chicago: University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {1995},
   Key = {fds249468}
}

@book{fds249469,
   Author = {Rohde, D and Abramson, P and Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Year = {1995},
   Key = {fds249469}
}

@book{fds303767,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Year = {1994},
   Key = {fds303767}
}

@book{fds249466,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds249466}
}

@book{fds249464,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press},
   Year = {1986},
   Key = {fds249464}
}

@book{fds249465,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Miller, G and Ostrom, C and Rohde,
             D},
   Title = {American Government: People, Institutions and
             Policies},
   Publisher = {Boston: Houghton Mifflin},
   Year = {1986},
   Key = {fds249465}
}

@book{fds249463,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Nelson, F},
   Title = {Analysis with a Limited Dependent Variable: Linear
             Probability, Logit, and Probit Models},
   Publisher = {Sage Series on Quantitative Analysis},
   Year = {1984},
   Key = {fds249463}
}

@book{fds249462,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, PR and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections},
   Publisher = {Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press},
   Year = {1982},
   Key = {fds249462}
}

@book{fds249461,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in
             Presidential Nomination Campaigns},
   Publisher = {Chicago: University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {1980},
   Key = {fds249461}
}


%% Monographs   
@misc{fds303766,
   Author = {Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Interdisciplinary: Its Role in a Discipline-Based Academy
             (Task force report)},
   Publisher = {American Political Science Association},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {October},
   Key = {fds303766}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@misc{fds341780,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Diskin, A and Houck, AM and Levine, R and Scotto, TJ and Sparks, DB},
   Title = {The effect of national and constituency expectations on
             tactical voting in the British General Election of
             2010},
   Pages = {28-60},
   Booktitle = {The Many Faces of Strategic Voting: Tactical Behavior in
             Electoral Systems Around the World},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {November},
   ISBN = {9780472131020},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9946117},
   Doi = {10.3998/mpub.9946117},
   Key = {fds341780}
}

@misc{fds249401,
   Author = {Shi, T and Lu, J and Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Bifurcated images of the U.S. in Urban China and the impact
             of media environment},
   Pages = {97-116},
   Booktitle = {Political Communication in China: Convergence or Divergence
             Between the Media and Political System},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780203720165},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203720165},
   Abstract = {The Chinese public’s prevailing admiration and respect for
             the United States was widely observed in the 1980s when
             reforms first began. However, since the early 1990s
             significant anti-American sentiments have started to emerge
             in China. Such a dramatic shift in Chinese people’s
             attitudes toward the U.S. has significant implications for
             both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policies. Many
             politicians, journalists, and scholars have identified the
             increasing reliance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on
             nationalism for mobilizing political support, as well as its
             still firm control over the domestic mass media for
             propaganda campaigns, as critical factors driving this
             dramatic public opinion shift. Nevertheless, without
             systematic and appropriate empirical evidence, it is
             extremely difficult to adjudicate the validity of
             speculations on why such a change occurred. Taking advantage
             of a 2005 two-city survey in China with pertinent survey
             instruments, we (a) explored Chinese urban residents’
             usage of different media sources, (b) examined the
             dimensionality of their evaluations of the U.S., and (c)
             scrutinized the impacts of Chinese urbanites’ usage of
             diversified media sources on their perceptions of the U.S.
             The findings show that people’s attitudes toward U.S.
             foreign policies can be clearly distinguished from their
             evaluations of American political institutions and
             socioeconomic achievements. Most importantly, our analyses
             also reveal that, embedded as they are in China’s
             partially transformed and partially diversified media
             environment, Chinese urban residents do not become
             pro-American (or vice versa) from the usage of alternative
             media sources beyond the CCP’s control.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203720165},
   Key = {fds249401}
}

@misc{fds249458,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Perry, BN and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Richard Fenno’s Theory of Congressional Committees and the
             Partisan Polarization of the House,},
   Booktitle = {Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Address = {Washington, D.C.},
   Editor = {Dodd, LC and Oppenheimer, BI},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds249458}
}

@misc{fds341791,
   Author = {Kuhnline Sloan and CD and Nandi, P and Linz, TH and Aldrich, JV and Audus,
             KL and Lunte, SM},
   Title = {Analytical and biological methods for probing the
             blood-brain barrier.},
   Volume = {5},
   Pages = {505-531},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anchem-062011-143002},
   Abstract = {The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is an important interface
             between the peripheral and central nervous systems. It
             protects the brain against the infiltration of harmful
             substances and regulates the permeation of beneficial
             endogenous substances from the blood into the extracellular
             fluid of the brain. It can also present a major obstacle in
             the development of drugs that are targeted for the central
             nervous system. Several methods have been developed to
             investigate the transport and metabolism of drugs, peptides,
             and endogenous compounds at the BBB. In vivo methods include
             intravenous injection, brain perfusion, positron emission
             tomography, and microdialysis sampling. Researchers have
             also developed in vitro cell-culture models that can be
             employed to investigate transport and metabolism at the BBB
             without the complication of systemic involvement. All these
             methods require sensitive and selective analytical methods
             to monitor the transport and metabolism of the compounds of
             interest at the BBB.},
   Doi = {10.1146/annurev-anchem-062011-143002},
   Key = {fds341791}
}

@misc{fds198847,
   Author = {J.H. Aldrich and Melanie Freeze},
   Title = {Political Participation, Polarization, and Public Opinion:
             Activism and the Merging of Partisan and Ideological
             Polarization},
   Booktitle = {Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the
             Analysis of Public Opinion and Political
             Participation},
   Publisher = {Princeton University Press},
   Editor = {Paul Sniderman and Ben Highton},
   Year = {2011},
   Key = {fds198847}
}

@misc{fds249456,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Rohde, D and Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Consequences of Electoral and Institutional Change: The
             Evolution of Conditional Party Government in the U.S. House
             of Representatives1},
   Pages = {234-250},
   Booktitle = {New Directions in American Political Parties},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Editor = {Stonecash, JM},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780415805230},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203868416-24},
   Abstract = {The U.S. Congress has changed in many ways over the last
             fifty years, but perhaps the most dramatic has been the
             changing role of the political parties. David Mayhew’s
             study of the Congress (published in 1974) argued that
             political parties were weak institutions in the Congress,
             and that they were weak because the members wanted it that
             way.2 Virtually as he was writing, the Democratic Party (in
             the midst of its forty-year reign as majority party), began
             revising its own rules to strengthen its party organization
             and its leadership in the House. These changing electoral
             and legislative circumstances resulted, in time, in the
             passage of more partisan legislation. That is, many of the
             most important pieces of legislation, aft er these changes
             were fully in place, passed with a greater degree of
             party-line voting and with policy content that was closer to
             the views of a now more consensual majority in the
             Democratic Party than was true in the House Mayhew examined
             (see chapter 1 for a discussion of changes in party unity).
             This trend continued, indeed even expanded, when the
             Republican Party won majority control in the 1994 elections,
             and has persisted with the return of Democrats to
             power.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203868416-24},
   Key = {fds249456}
}

@misc{fds249453,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Studying American Elections},
   Pages = {700-715},
   Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and
             Behavior},
   Editor = {Leighley, J},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {978-0-19-923547-6},
   Key = {fds249453}
}

@misc{fds249454,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Griffin, J},
   Title = {Parties, Elections, and Democratic Politics},
   Pages = {595-610},
   Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and
             Behavior},
   Editor = {Leighley, J},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {978-0-19-923547-6},
   Key = {fds249454}
}

@misc{fds249455,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Lupia, A},
   Title = {Formal Modeling, Strategic Beahvior, and the Study of
             American Elections},
   Pages = {89-104},
   Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and
             Behavior},
   Editor = {Leighley, J},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {978-0-19-923547-6},
   Key = {fds249455}
}

@misc{fds249457,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Grynaveski, J},
   Title = {Theories of Political Parties},
   Pages = {21-36},
   Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and
             Interest Groups},
   Year = {2010},
   ISBN = {978-0-19-954262-8},
   Key = {fds249457}
}

@misc{fds249402,
   Author = {Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Decisions people make in small groups},
   Pages = {73-74},
   Booktitle = {The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {March},
   ISBN = {0203882318},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203882313},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203882313},
   Key = {fds249402}
}

@misc{fds249412,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Freeze, M},
   Title = {Political Participation, Polarization, and Public Opinion:
             Activism and the Merging of Partisan and Ideological
             Polarization},
   Booktitle = {Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the
             Analysis of Public Opinion and Political
             Participation},
   Publisher = {Princeton University Press},
   Editor = {Highton, B and Sniderman, P},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds249412}
}

@misc{fds249413,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Lupia, A},
   Title = {Experiments and Game Theory’s Value to Political
             Science},
   Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of Experiments in the Social
             Sciences},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds249413}
}

@misc{fds249414,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Lupia, A},
   Title = {Formal Modeling, Strategic Behavior, and the Study of
             American Elections},
   Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political
             Behavior},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds249414}
}

@misc{fds249415,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Griffin, J},
   Title = {“Parties, Elections, and Democratic Politics"},
   Booktitle = {., Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political
             Behavior},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds249415}
}

@misc{fds249398,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Alt, JE and Lupia, A},
   Title = {The Eitm Approach: Origins and Interpretations},
   Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {August},
   ISBN = {9780199286546},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0037},
   Abstract = {This article describes the National Science Foundation
             (NSF)'s initiative to close the gap between theory and
             methods. It also deals with the Empirical Implications of
             Theoretical Models (EITM) as currently understood as a way
             of thinking about causal inference in service to causal
             reasoning. Additionally, it explores the approach's origins
             and various ways in which NSF's call to EITM action has been
             interpreted. It makes a brief attempt to explain why the
             EITM approach emerged, why it is valuable, and how it is
             currently understood. It then contends that EITM has been
             interpreted in multiple ways. It emphasizes a subset of
             extant interpretations and, in the process, offers views
             about the most constructive way forward. The idea of EITM is
             to bring deduction and induction, hypothesis generation and
             hypothesis testing, close together.},
   Doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0037},
   Key = {fds249398}
}

@misc{fds249450,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, PR and Blais, A and Lee, D and Levine,
             R},
   Title = {Coalition Considerations and the Vote},
   Pages = {45-66},
   Booktitle = {The Elections in Israel, 2006},
   Publisher = {Transaction Publishers},
   Editor = {Arian, A and Shamir, M},
   Year = {2008},
   Key = {fds249450}
}

@misc{fds249451,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan
             Era},
   Booktitle = {Congress Reconsidered, 9th edition},
   Year = {2008},
   ISBN = {978-0-87289-616-1},
   Key = {fds249451}
}

@misc{fds249452,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Brady, M and Marchi, SD and McDonald, I and Nyhan, B and Rohde, DW and Tofias, M},
   Title = {Party and Constitutency in the U.S. Senate,
             1933-2004},
   Booktitle = {Why Not Parties?},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Editor = {Monroe, N and Roberts, JM and Rohde, DW},
   Year = {2008},
   Key = {fds249452}
}

@misc{fds249410,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Grynaveski, J},
   Title = {Theories of Political Parties},
   Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of Political Parties and Interest
             Groups},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Editor = {Maisel, LS and Berry, JM},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds249410}
}

@misc{fds249411,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, PR and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {On Elections},
   Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political
             Behavior},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Editor = {Leighley, J},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds249411}
}

@misc{fds249447,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW and Tofias, M},
   Title = {One D Is Not Enough: Measuring Conditional Party Government,
             1887-2002},
   Booktitle = {Party, Profess and Political Change in Congress: Further New
             Perspectives on the History of Congress},
   Publisher = {Stanford University Press},
   Editor = {Brady, D and McCubbins, MD},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds249447}
}

@misc{fds249448,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Poole, KT},
   Title = {Statistical Tests of Theoretical Results},
   Pages = {93-102},
   Booktitle = {A Positive Change in Political Science: The Legacy of
             Richard D. McKelvey’s Most Influential
             Writings},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {Aldrich, JH and Alt, J and Lupia, A},
   Year = {2007},
   ISBN = {13-978-0-472-09986-3},
   Key = {fds249448}
}

@misc{fds249449,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Abramson, PR and Blais, A and Lee, D and Levine,
             R},
   Title = {Coalition Considerations and the Vote},
   Booktitle = {The Elections in Israel, 2006},
   Publisher = {Israel Demcoracy Institute},
   Editor = {Arian, A and Shamir, M},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds249449}
}

@misc{fds249446,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Political Parties In and Out of Legal Legislatures},
   Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
   Editor = {Rhodes, R},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds249446}
}

@misc{fds249445,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Congressional Committees in a Partisan Era},
   Series = {8th ed.},
   Booktitle = {Congress Reconsidered},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Editor = {Dodd, LC and Oppenheimer, BI},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fds249445}
}

@misc{fds249444,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Blais, A and Indridason, IH and Levine,
             R},
   Title = {Coalition Considerations and the Vote},
   Pages = {180-211},
   Booktitle = {The Elections in Israel, 2003},
   Publisher = {Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Democracy Institute and New
             Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press},
   Editor = {Arian, A and Shamir, M},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds249444}
}

@misc{fds249409,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Griffin, JD and Rickershauser,
             J},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Campaign: Campaigns and Voter
             Priorities in the 2004 Election},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C.: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds249409}
}

@misc{fds249442,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Griffin, JD},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Campaign: Creating Voter Priorities
             in the 2000 Election},
   Series = {7th edition},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C.: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds249442}
}

@misc{fds249443,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Electoral Democracy During Politics as Usual – and
             Unusual},
   Booktitle = {Electoral Democracy},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {McKuen, M and Rabinowitz, G},
   Year = {2003},
   Key = {fds249443}
}

@misc{fds249438,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Berger, M and Rohde, D},
   Title = {The Historical Variability in Conditional Party Government,
             1977-1994},
   Booktitle = {Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New
             Perspectives on the History of Congress},
   Publisher = {Stanford University Press},
   Editor = {Brady, D and McCubbins, MD},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds249438}
}

@misc{fds249439,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P},
   Title = {Were Voters Strategic?},
   Booktitle = {Elections in Israel, 1999},
   Publisher = {SUNY, Albany Press},
   Editor = {Arian, A and Shamir, M},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds249439}
}

@misc{fds249440,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Electoral Democracy During Politics as Usual - and
             Unusual},
   Booktitle = {Electoral Democracy},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {McKuen, M and Rabinowitz, G},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds249440}
}

@misc{fds249441,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Jillson, C and Wilson, R},
   Title = {Why Congress: What the Failure of the Continental and the
             Survival of the Federal Congress Tell Us about the New
             Institutionalism},
   Booktitle = {Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New
             Perspectives on the History of Congress},
   Publisher = {Stanford University Press},
   Editor = {Brady, D and McCubbins, MD},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds249441}
}

@misc{fds249437,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the
             Electoral Connection},
   Series = {7th ed.},
   Booktitle = {Congress Reconsidered},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C.: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Dodd, LC and Oppenheimer, BI},
   Year = {2001},
   Key = {fds249437}
}

@misc{fds249434,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Explaining Institutional Change: Soaking and Poking in the
             U.S. Congress},
   Booktitle = {Congress on Display, Congress at Work},
   Publisher = {Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {Bianco, WT},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds249434}
}

@misc{fds249435,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Weko, T},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Election Campaign: Framing the Choice
             in 1996},
   Series = {6th},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C.: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds249435}
}

@misc{fds249436,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, D},
   Title = {The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The
             Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional
             Party Government},
   Booktitle = {Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan
             Era},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Editor = {Bond, JR and Fleisher, R},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds249436}
}

@misc{fds249433,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Weko, T},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Election Campaign: Framing the Choice
             in 1996},
   Series = {5th edition},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds249433}
}

@misc{fds341796,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Balance of power: Republican party leadership and the
             committee system in the 104th House.},
   Journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {590-590},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {November},
   Key = {fds341796}
}

@misc{fds249432,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {When is it Rational to Vote?},
   Booktitle = {Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {Mueller, D},
   Year = {1997},
   Key = {fds249432}
}

@misc{fds249431,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Foreign Policy and Elections},
   Booktitle = {American Reference Publication Company in conjunction with
             the Council on Foreign Relations},
   Editor = {Jentleson, BW and Smith, G},
   Year = {1996},
   Key = {fds249431}
}

@misc{fds249429,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Weko, T},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Election Campaign},
   Series = {4th edition},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {1994},
   Key = {fds249429}
}

@misc{fds249430,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Rational Choice and the Study of American
             Politics},
   Booktitle = {The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and
             Interpretations},
   Publisher = {Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press},
   Editor = {Dodd, LC and Jillson, C},
   Year = {1994},
   Key = {fds249430}
}

@misc{fds249427,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Niemi, RG},
   Title = {The Sixth American Party System: Electoral Change,
             1952-1992},
   Booktitle = {Broken Contract:: Changing Relationships between Americans
             and their Government},
   Publisher = {Westview Press},
   Editor = {Craig, S},
   Year = {1993},
   Key = {fds249427}
}

@misc{fds249428,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Presidential Selection},
   Booktitle = {Researching the Presidency: Vital Questions, New
             Approaches},
   Publisher = {Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh
             Press},
   Editor = {III, GE and Kessel, JH and Rockman, BA},
   Year = {1993},
   Key = {fds249428}
}

@misc{fds249426,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Presidential Campaigns in Party- and Candidate-Centered
             Eras},
   Booktitle = {Under Watchful Eye: Managing Presidential Campaigns in the
             Television Era},
   Publisher = {Washington, D.C.: CQ Press},
   Editor = {McCubbins, MD},
   Year = {1992},
   Key = {fds249426}
}

@misc{fds249424,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Weko, T},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Election Campaign: Framing the Choice
             in 1988},
   Series = {3rd edition},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {Washington: CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds249424}
}

@misc{fds249425,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rahn, W and Borgida, E and Sullivan,
             J},
   Title = {A Social Cognitive Model of Candidate Appraisal},
   Booktitle = {Information and Democratic Processes},
   Publisher = {Champaign, Ill., University of Illinois Press},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds249425}
}

@misc{fds249422,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Power and Order: The Bases of Institutional Structure and
             Its Change in the U.S. House of Representatives},
   Booktitle = {Home Style and Washington Work},
   Publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
   Editor = {Fiorina, MP and Rohde, DW},
   Year = {1989},
   Key = {fds249422}
}

@misc{fds249423,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Presidential Nominations and a Clash of Values},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency in American Politics},
   Publisher = {New York: New York University},
   Editor = {Brace, P and Harrington, C and King, G},
   Year = {1989},
   Key = {fds249423}
}

@misc{fds249421,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Weko, T},
   Title = {The Presidency and the Election Process: Campaign Strategy,
             Voting, and Governance},
   Series = {2nd edition},
   Pages = {155-187},
   Booktitle = {The Presidency and the Political System},
   Publisher = {CQ Press},
   Editor = {Nelson, M},
   Year = {1988},
   Key = {fds249421}
}

@misc{fds249419,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Methods and Actors: The Relationship of Processes to
             Candidates},
   Booktitle = {Perspectives on Presidential Selection},
   Publisher = {Duke University Press},
   Editor = {Heard, A and Nelson, M},
   Year = {1987},
   Key = {fds249419}
}

@misc{fds249420,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Duvall, R and Weldes, J},
   Title = {The Costs of National Security: Spending for Defense and
             Spending for Welfare in the United States:
             1948-1983},
   Booktitle = {Issues and Choices},
   Publisher = {University Press of America},
   Editor = {Goldman, J},
   Year = {1987},
   Key = {fds249420}
}

@misc{fds249418,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Nelson, F},
   Title = {Logit and Probit Models for Multivariate Analysis with
             Qualitative Dependent Variables},
   Booktitle = {New Directions in Social Science Research
             Models},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Editor = {Berry, WD and Lewis-Beck, MS},
   Year = {1986},
   Key = {fds249418}
}

@misc{fds249417,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {The Limitations of Equilibrium Analysis in Political
             Science},
   Booktitle = {Political Equilibrium},
   Publisher = {Boston: Martinus Nijhoff},
   Editor = {Ordeshook, P and Shepsle, K},
   Year = {1982},
   Key = {fds249417}
}

@misc{fds249416,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Model of the U.S. Presidential Primary
             Campaign},
   Booktitle = {Applied Game Theory},
   Publisher = {Wurzburg-Wien, Austria: Physica-Verlag},
   Editor = {Brams, SJ and Schotter, A and Schwodiauer, G},
   Year = {1979},
   Key = {fds249416}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds341781,
   Author = {Rheault, L and Blais, A and Aldrich, JH and Gschwend,
             T},
   Title = {Understanding people’s choice when they have two
             votes},
   Journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and
             Parties},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {466-483},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1560301},
   Abstract = {This paper introduces a model of vote choice in mixed-member
             proportional representation systems where electors cast two
             votes. Despite the growing popularity of mixed systems
             around the world, a recent stream of literature suggests
             that the candidate vote contaminates the list vote, inducing
             the type of behavior observed under majority rule. We
             propose a new approach to account for these so-called
             “contamination” effects, a phenomenon that we define as
             a causal influence making choices more similar across the
             vote decisions. Since causality entails a time ordering, we
             argue that contamination arises only when voters choose
             sequentially. By making use of new survey questions asking
             respondents about the timing of vote decisions, we can
             estimate the magnitude of these contamination effects
             directly. The model is tested using Bayesian multinomial
             probit models with survey data from the 2013 federal
             election in Germany. A key contribution of this paper is to
             show that contamination effects are present only among
             voters with lower levels of education, and work primarily
             from the list vote to the candidate vote. We also test a
             number of predictions about the determinants of the two vote
             choices in mixed systems.},
   Doi = {10.1080/17457289.2018.1560301},
   Key = {fds341781}
}

@article{fds341782,
   Author = {Magalhães, PC and Aldrich, JH and Gibson, RK},
   Title = {New forms of mobilization, new people mobilized? Evidence
             from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems},
   Journal = {Party Politics},
   Volume = {26},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {605-618},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068818797367},
   Abstract = {Mobilization efforts by parties and candidates during
             election campaigns tend to reach those who are more likely
             to vote in the first place. This is thought to be
             particularly consequential for turnout among the young.
             Harder and less cost-effective to reach, young adults are
             less mobilized and vote less often, creating a vicious
             circle of demobilization. However, new forms of political
             communication—including online and text messaging—have
             created expectations this circle might be broken. Is this
             happening? We examine data from Module 4 of the Comparative
             Study of Electoral Systems surveys, looking at the
             prevalence of different types of party contacts in 38
             countries, the profile of voters who are reached, and the
             effects of these efforts on turnout. New forms of party
             contacting do matter for turnout and partially reduce the
             age gap in contacting, but still fail to compensate for the
             much larger differentials that persist in traditional forms
             of contacting.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1354068818797367},
   Key = {fds341782}
}

@article{fds335621,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Schober, GS and Ley, S and Fernandez,
             M},
   Title = {Incognizance and Perceptual Deviation: Individual and
             Institutional Sources of Variation in Citizens’
             Perceptions of Party Placements on the Left–Right
             Scale},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {40},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {415-433},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9406-8},
   Abstract = {In this paper we use comparative study of electoral systems
             data to understand the variation in citizens’ perceptions
             of political party placements on the left–right scale. We
             estimate multilevel models to assess the extent to which
             individual characteristics, party characteristics, and
             institutional designs contribute to variability observed in
             citizens’ perceptions of party placements. Because lack of
             information on the part of the citizens may be revealed
             through failure to respond to the left–right scale
             questions or through random components to actual placements,
             we develop models that include assessments of both types of
             responses to reduce bias from considering only one source.
             We find that individual-, party-, and institutional-level
             variables are relevant to understanding variation in
             citizens’ perceptions of party placements. Finally, we
             demonstrate that an inability to cognize the left–right
             scale (incognizance) and a deviation in the perceptions of
             party positions (perceptual deviation) have important
             consequences for citizens’ thermometer evaluations of
             political parties.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11109-017-9406-8},
   Key = {fds335621}
}

@article{fds341783,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Ballard, AO and Lerner, JY and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Does the gift keep on giving? House leadership PAC donations
             before and after majority status},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {79},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {1449-1453},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/692736},
   Abstract = {Party leaders face a significant trade-off financing races
             when the party is out of power: while they care about
             gaining control of the House, they do not know how willing a
             potential representative will be to work with and for the
             party once elected. Leadership political action committee
             (LPAC) contributions are a major mechanism of leadership
             control over the financing of congressional campaigns, with
             the hope of influencing the future behavior of candidates.
             We study differences between contributions of the LPACs for
             leaders of both parties conditional on majority status. We
             find that both majority and minority party leaders
             prioritize winning elections and ideological homogeneity in
             their donations, but that these trends are largely
             contingent on overall electoral conditions. In their
             contributions, majority party leaders pay more attention to
             ideological cohesion than minority party leaders, while
             minority party leaders are more interested in gaining seats
             in the House than majority party leaders.},
   Doi = {10.1086/692736},
   Key = {fds341783}
}

@article{fds341784,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Thomsen, DM},
   Title = {Party, Policy, and the Ambition to Run for Higher
             Office},
   Journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
   Volume = {42},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {321-343},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12161},
   Abstract = {This article examines why some state legislators run for
             Congress and others do not. Our main argument is that there
             are differences in the expected value of a state legislative
             seat and the expected benefits of being a member of
             Congress. One key component of this value is how closely the
             candidate fits with her party. We find that the probability
             of seeking congressional office increases among state
             legislators who are distant from the state party and
             proximate to the congressional party and decreases among
             those who are distant from the congressional party and
             proximate to the state party.},
   Doi = {10.1111/lsq.12161},
   Key = {fds341784}
}

@article{fds341786,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Gibson, RK and Cantijoch, M and Konitzer,
             T},
   Title = {Getting out the vote in the social media era: Are digital
             tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party
             contacting in elections?},
   Journal = {Party Politics},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {165-178},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068815605304},
   Abstract = {This paper compares the spread and impact of new digital
             modes of voter mobilization with more traditional methods
             (phone, mail and in person canvassing) in recent national
             elections in the US and UK. We develop hypotheses regarding
             the relative effects of online contacting and test them
             using election study data. Our findings show that while
             online contact is generally less frequent than the offline
             form in both countries, this gap is particularly pronounced
             in the UK. US campaigns also reach a much wider audience
             than their UK counterparts. In terms of impact, while
             offline forms remain most effective in mobilizing turnout,
             online messages are important for campaign participation,
             particularly among younger citizens when they are mediated
             through social networks.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1354068815605304},
   Key = {fds341786}
}

@article{fds324426,
   Author = {Gibson, RK and Aldrich, JH and Cantijoch, M},
   Title = {Voter mobilisation in context: Special issue editors’
             introduction},
   Journal = {Party Politics},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {145-148},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068815604865},
   Doi = {10.1177/1354068815604865},
   Key = {fds324426}
}

@article{fds341787,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Press, CO and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Joseph A. Schlesinger In Memoriam},
   Journal = {Ps: Political Science & Politics},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {651-652},
   Publisher = {CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {October},
   Key = {fds341787}
}

@article{fds341788,
   Author = {Lupia, A and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {How Political Science Can Better Communicate its Value: 12
             Recommendations from the APSA task Force},
   Journal = {Ps: Political Science & Politics},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {S1},
   Pages = {1-19},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000335},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1049096515000335},
   Key = {fds341788}
}

@article{fds249397,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Lu, J},
   Title = {How the public in the US, Latin America, and East Asia sees
             an emerging China},
   Journal = {European Review},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {227-241},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {1062-7987},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1062798714000659},
   Abstract = {The People's Republic of China's dramatic transformation has
             not only benefited its people, but has also led it to become
             a major player in the world. Here we examine how deeply
             perceptions of China have penetrated into the public's
             perceptions in a wide variety of nations around the world -
             the US, 11 nations in East Asia, and 22 in Latin America. We
             ask a series of questions: how much do people know? How do
             Americans evaluate China? And how do publics in East Asia
             and Latin America view China's influence in their nations
             and around the world? We also examine some of the ways in
             which perceptions vary, both across nations and within
             nations, such as by partisanship. In addition, we report the
             results of an experiment using an advertisement the PRC ran
             in the US to assess how successful they were in shaping
             public opinion about China. We conclude that our studies,
             and those of others, provide a strong baseline for assessing
             the effect of an emerging superpower on citizens around the
             world.},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1062798714000659},
   Key = {fds249397}
}

@article{fds249399,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Did Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison "Cause" the U.S.
             Government Shutdown? the institutional path from an
             eighteenth century republic to a twenty-first century
             democracy},
   Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {7-23},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {1537-5927},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003107},
   Abstract = {This address asks how we got to today's politics in America;
             a politics of polarized political parties engaged in close
             political competition in a system of checks and balances.
             The result has often been divided control of government and
             an apparent inability to address major political problems.
             This address develops the historical foundation for these
             characteristics. Historically, the Founding period set the
             stage of separated powers and the first party system.
             America developed a market economy, a middle class, and a
             mass-based set of parties in the Antebellum period. Through
             the Progressive era, nation-wide reforms led to a more
             democratic but increasingly candidate-centered politics in
             the North, and the establishment of Jim Crow politics in the
             South. The post-War period saw the full development of
             candidate-centered elections. While the breakup of Jim Crow
             due to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in the
             mid-1960s ended Jim Crow and made possible a competitive
             party system in the South, the later was delayed until the
             full implementation of the Republican's southern strategy in
             1980 and beyond. This set in motion the partisan
             polarization of today, to combine with separated powers to
             create what many refer to as the current political
             dysfunction.},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1537592714003107},
   Key = {fds249399}
}

@article{fds249400,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Lu, J and Kang, L},
   Title = {How do Americans view the rising China?},
   Journal = {Journal of Contemporary China},
   Volume = {24},
   Number = {92},
   Pages = {203-221},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {1067-0564},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2014.932148},
   Abstract = {The dramatic increase in China’s economic and hence
             political power and influence is a common story around the
             world. Just how clearly and well does this story get across
             to citizens of some nations other than China, itself? In
             particular, we ask what Americans know about China. Do they
             observe its rise? Are their views simple or rich and
             nuanced? How do they vary across the public? What leads to
             more positive and what leads to more negative views of
             China? We report the results of a survey of the American
             population designed to address these questions. We find that
             they are reasonably knowledgeable of China’s rise and that
             they have rich and nuanced perceptions of a variety of
             dimensions of China, its society, economy and polity. These
             views are, on balance, not especially positive, but the more
             cosmopolitan the citizen, the more likely they are to hold
             positive views. Those who are Democrats, who are liberals,
             and who have had the opportunity to travel in China are
             especially likely to have positive impressions.},
   Doi = {10.1080/10670564.2014.932148},
   Key = {fds249400}
}

@article{fds249459,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Munger, M and Reifler, J},
   Title = {Institutions, information, and faction: An experimental test
             of Riker's federalism thesis for political
             parties},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {158},
   Number = {3-4},
   Pages = {577-588},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {0048-5829},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-0040-z},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11127-012-0040-z},
   Key = {fds249459}
}

@article{fds287701,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Reifler, J and Munger, MC},
   Title = {Sophisticated and myopic? Citizen preferences for Electoral
             College reform},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {158},
   Number = {3-4},
   Pages = {541-558},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {0048-5829},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0056-z},
   Abstract = {Different institutions can produce more (or less) preferred
             outcomes, in terms of citizens' preferences. Consequently,
             citizen preferences over institutions may "inherit"-to use
             William Riker's term-the features of preferences over
             outcomes. But the level of information and understanding
             required for this effect to be observable seems quite high.
             In this paper, we investigate whether Riker's intuition
             about citizens acting on institutional preferences is borne
             out by an original empirical dataset collected for this
             purpose. These data, a survey commissioned specifically for
             this project, were collected as part of a larger nationally
             representative sample conducted right before the 2004
             election. The results show that support for a reform to
             split a state's Electoral College votes proportionally is
             explained by (1) which candidate one supports, (2) which
             candidate one thinks is likely to win the election under the
             existing system of apportionment, (3) preferences for
             abolishing the Electoral College in favor of the popular
             vote winner, and (4) statistical interactions between these
             variables. In baldly political terms, Kerry voters tend to
             support splitting their state's Electoral College votes if
             they felt George W. Bush was likely to win in that state.
             But Kerry voters who expect Kerry to win their state favor
             winner-take-all Electoral College rules for their state. In
             both cases, mutatis mutandis, the reverse is true for Bush
             voters. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New
             York.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11127-013-0056-z},
   Key = {fds287701}
}

@article{fds249408,
   Author = {Lu, J and Aldrich, J and Shi, T},
   Title = {Revisiting Media Effects in Authoritarian Societies:
             Democratic Conceptions, Collectivistic Norms, and Media
             Access in Urban China},
   Journal = {Politics & Society},
   Volume = {42},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {253-283},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0032-3292},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329213519423},
   Abstract = {We argue that, to effectively understand media effects in
             authoritarian societies, researchers must assess different
             types of media strategies adopted by authoritarian leaders.
             Using survey data from two Chinese cities, we examine the
             effects of two types of media strategies adopted by the
             Chinese government, targeting political attitudes and
             nonpolitical values and norms, respectively. Following a new
             line of research, we contrast China's domestic-controlled
             media to foreign free media. After accounting for the
             selection bias in Chinese urbanites' media access, we do not
             find sufficient evidence for the effect of the media
             strategies directly targeting their democratic conceptions.
             However, sufficient and robust evidence shows that more
             intensive consumption of diverse media sources, including
             foreign media, does significantly but indirectly counteract
             the Chinese government's political campaigns targeting its
             citizens' democratic conceptions, via thwarting the
             government's media strategies to cultivate a collectivistic
             norm in the society. © 2014 SAGE Publications.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0032329213519423},
   Key = {fds249408}
}

@article{fds341789,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Montgomery, JM and Sparks, DB},
   Title = {Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low
             dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses},
   Journal = {Political Analysis},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {435-456},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt048},
   Abstract = {In this article, we challenge the conclusion that the
             preferences of members of Congress are best represented as
             existing in a low-dimensional space. We conduct Monte Carlo
             simulations altering assumptions regarding the
             dimensionality and distribution of member preferences and
             scale the resulting roll call matrices. Our simulations show
             that party polarization generates misleading evidence in
             favor of low dimensionality. This suggests that the
             increasing levels of party polarization in recent Congresses
             may have produced false evidence in favor of a
             lowdimensional policy space. However, we show that focusing
             more narrowly on each party caucus in isolation can help
             researchers discern the true dimensionality of the policy
             space in the context of significant party polarization. We
             re-examine the historical roll call record and find evidence
             suggesting that the low dimensionality of the contemporary
             Congress may reflect party polarization rather than changes
             in the dimensionality of policy conflict.},
   Doi = {10.1093/pan/mpt048},
   Key = {fds341789}
}

@article{fds249486,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Diskin, A and Houck, AM and Levine, R and Scotto, TJ},
   Title = {The British general election of 2010 under different voting
             rules},
   Journal = {Electoral Studies},
   Volume = {32},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {134-139},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {0261-3794},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.002},
   Abstract = {The 2010 British election resulted in what the British refer
             to as a " hung Parliament" for the first time in over a
             generation. This result further heightened the debate over
             the fairness and utility of the nation's centuries-old
             first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Survey data are used to
             simulate the election outcome under four different electoral
             systems beyond FPTP: round-robin pair-wise comparisons, the
             Borda count, the alternative vote, and Coombs' method.
             Results suggest that in 2010, the Liberal-Democrats were
             Condorcet preferred to all other parties and would have won
             a national election under every tested method except the
             alternative vote, the method supported by the
             Liberal-Democrats during the referendum in May 2011 and, of
             course, FPTP as actually used. © 2012 Elsevier
             Ltd.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.002},
   Key = {fds249486}
}

@article{fds249487,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Bishop, BH and Hatch, RS and Sunshine Hillygus and D and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {Blame, Responsibility, and the Tea Party in the 2010 Midterm
             Elections},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {36},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {1-21},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2013},
   ISSN = {0190-9320},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9242-4},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11109-013-9242-4},
   Key = {fds249487}
}

@article{fds341790,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Ley, SJ and Schober, GS},
   Title = {Uncertainty or Ambiguity? Sources of Variation in
             Ideological Placements of Political Parties},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds341790}
}

@article{fds249484,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Perry, BN and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {House Appropriations After the Republican
             Revolution},
   Journal = {Congress & the Presidency},
   Volume = {39},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {229-253},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {Fall},
   ISSN = {0734-3469},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2012.710708},
   Abstract = {This article applies the theory of "conditional party
             government" (CPG) to the interaction between the majority
             party and the Appropriations Committee in the period
             following the Republican Revolution of 1995. We extend the
             analysis of Aldrich and Rohde (2000b) by examining how
             actions within the committee have changed over time and
             analyzing whether behavior and outcomes continue to match
             the expectations of CPG theory, particularly with respect to
             the times in which power in Congress switched from the
             Republicans to the Democrats and back. The conditions of the
             CPG theory continued to be met so that we can continue to
             test the theory's predictions. We show that following the
             Republican Revolution, the role of the party remained
             paramount and the party leadership maintained its influence
             over the direction of policy. While in the majority, both
             parties used the Appropriations Committee as a vehicle for
             policy change and the party leadership monitored committee
             actions, either by blocking policy shifts away from what the
             majority party wanted or facilitating changes in the desired
             direction. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group,
             LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1080/07343469.2012.710708},
   Key = {fds249484}
}

@article{fds249485,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Munger, MC and Reifler, J},
   Title = {Institutions, Information, and Faction: An Experimental Test
             of Riker’s Federalism Thesis for Political
             Parties},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds249485}
}

@article{fds249488,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, J and Reifler, J and Munger, M},
   Title = {Sophisticated and myopic? Citizen preferences for Electoral
             College reform.},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {2013},
   Pages = {1-18},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds249488}
}

@article{fds249483,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and McGraw, KM},
   Title = {Improving public opinion surveys: Interdisciplinary
             innovation and the American national election
             studies},
   Journal = {Improving Public Opinion Surveys: Interdisciplinary
             Innovation and the American National Election
             Studies},
   Pages = {1-395},
   Publisher = {Princeton University Press},
   Editor = {Aldrich, J and McGraw, K},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {December},
   ISBN = {9780691151465},
   Abstract = {The American National Election Studies (ANES) is the premier
             social science survey program devoted to voting and
             elections. Conducted during the presidential election years
             and midterm Congressional elections, the survey is based on
             interviews with voters and delves into why they make certain
             choices. In this edited volume, John Aldrich and Kathleen
             McGraw bring together a group of leading social scientists
             that developed and tested new measures that might be added
             to the ANES, with the ultimate goal of extending scholarly
             understanding of the causes and consequences of electoral
             outcomes. The contributors--leading experts from several
             disciplines in the fields of polling, public opinion, survey
             methodology, and elections and voting behavior--illuminate
             some of the most important questions and results from the
             ANES 2006 pilot study. They look at such varied topics as
             self-monitoring in the expression of political attitudes,
             personal values and political orientations, alternate
             measures of political trust, perceptions of similarity and
             disagreement in partisan groups, measuring ambivalence about
             government, gender preferences in politics, and the
             political issues of abortion, crime, and taxes. Testing new
             ideas in the study of politics and the political psychology
             of voting choices and turnout, this collection is an
             invaluable resource for all students and scholars working to
             understand the American electorate. © 2012 by Princeton
             University Press. All Rights Reserved.},
   Key = {fds249483}
}

@article{fds198845,
   Author = {J.H. Aldrich and J.M. Montgomery and W. Wood},
   Title = {Turnout as a Habit},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {33},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {535-563},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {December},
   Key = {fds198845}
}

@article{fds249491,
   Author = {Shi, T and Lu, J and Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Bifurcated images of the U.S. in Urban China and the impact
             of media environment},
   Journal = {Political Communication},
   Volume = {28},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {357-376},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {1058-4609},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000299956800006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {The Chinese public's prevailing admiration and respect for
             the United States was widely observed in the 1980s when
             reforms first began. However, since the early 1990s
             significant anti-American sentiments have started to emerge
             in China. Such a dramatic shift in Chinese people's
             attitudes toward the U.S. has significant implications for
             both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policies. Many
             politicians, journalists, and scholars have identified the
             increasing reliance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on
             nationalism for mobilizing political support, as well as its
             still firm control over the domestic mass media for
             propaganda campaigns, as critical factors driving this
             dramatic public opinion shift. Nevertheless, without
             systematic and appropriate empirical evidence, it is
             extremely difficult to adjudicate the validity of
             speculations on why such a change occurred. Taking advantage
             of a 2005 two-city survey in China with pertinent survey
             instruments, we (a) explored Chinese urban residents' usage
             of different media sources, (b) examined the dimensionality
             of their evaluations of the U.S., and (c) scrutinized the
             impacts of Chinese urbanites' usage of diversified media
             sources on their perceptions of the U.S. The findings show
             that people's attitudes toward U.S. foreign policies can be
             clearly distinguished from their evaluations of American
             political institutions and socioeconomic achievements. Most
             importantly, our analyses also reveal that, embedded as they
             are in China's partially transformed and partially
             diversified media environment, Chinese urban residents do
             not become pro-American (or vice versa) from the usage of
             alternative media sources beyond the CCP's control. ©
             Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1080/10584609.2011.572479},
   Key = {fds249491}
}

@article{fds341792,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Houck, A and Abramson, P and Levine, R and Scotto,
             TJ},
   Title = {Strategic Voting in the 2010 UK Election},
   Year = {2011},
   Key = {fds341792}
}

@article{fds304639,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Elinor Ostrom and the "just right" solution},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {143},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {269-273},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0048-5829},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9630-9},
   Abstract = {Elinor Ostrom is justly valued for her contributions to
             understanding the nature of and solution to common pool
             resource problems (CPRs). Her solution is generally referred
             to as balancing the aim of reducing the high costs
             associated with political solutions with that of
             ameliorating the absence of incentives to create solutions
             at all in the market-based approach. In this short paper, I
             characterize her solution as a " 'just right' solution," in
             the sense that it is a governmental solution, but one that
             balances these objectives. I consider endogenous variables
             that help maintain the creation of the institution to solve
             CPRs as being the "just right" solution, because it is at
             just the correct scope. © Springer Science+Business Media,
             LLC 2010.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11127-010-9630-9},
   Key = {fds304639}
}

@article{fds249497,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Blais, A and Diamond, M and Diskin, A and Indridason, IH and Lee, DJ and Levine, R},
   Title = {Comparing Strategic Voting Under FPTP and
             PR},
   Journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
   Volume = {43},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {61-90},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0010-4140},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414009341717},
   Abstract = {<jats:p> Based on recent work that suggests that voters in
             proportional representation (PR) systems have incentives to
             cast strategic votes, the authors hypothesize that levels of
             strategic voting are similar in both first-past-the-post
             (FPTP) and PR systems. Comparing vote intentions in
             majoritarian elections in the United States, Mexico,
             Britain, and Israel to PR elections in Israel and the
             Netherlands, the authors find that a substantial proportion
             of the voters desert their most preferred candidate or party
             and that patterns of strategic voting across FPTP and PR
             bear striking similarities. In every election, smaller
             parties tend to lose votes to major parties. Because there
             tend to be more small parties in PR systems, tactical voting
             is actually more common under PR than under FPTP. The
             findings suggest that whatever the electoral system, voters
             focus on the policy consequences of their behavior and which
             parties are likely to influence policy outcomes following
             the election. </jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.1177/0010414009341717},
   Key = {fds249497}
}

@article{fds249492,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Montgomery, J and Wood, W and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Turnout as a Habit},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {33},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {533-563},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2010},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9148-3},
   Abstract = {It is conventional to speak of voting as "habitual." But
             what does this mean? In psychology, habits are cognitive
             associations between repeated responses and stable features
             of the performance context. Thus, "turnout habit" is best
             measured by an index of repeated behavior and a consistent
             performance setting. Once habit associations form, the
             response can be cued even in the absence of supporting
             beliefs and motivations. Therefore, variables that form part
             of the standard cognitive-based accounts of turnout should
             be more weakly related to turnout among those with a strong
             habit. We draw evidence from a large array of ANES surveys
             to test these hypotheses and find strong support. © 2010
             Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11109-010-9148-3},
   Key = {fds249492}
}

@article{fds249493,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Elinor Ostrom and the ‘just right’ solution},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {143},
   Number = {3-4},
   Pages = {269-273},
   Year = {2010},
   ISSN = {0048-5829},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9630-9},
   Abstract = {Elinor Ostrom is justly valued for her contributions to
             understanding the nature of and solution to common pool
             resource problems (CPRs). Her solution is generally referred
             to as balancing the aim of reducing the high costs
             associated with political solutions with that of
             ameliorating the absence of incentives to create solutions
             at all in the market-based approach. In this short paper, I
             characterize her solution as a " 'just right' solution," in
             the sense that it is a governmental solution, but one that
             balances these objectives. I consider endogenous variables
             that help maintain the creation of the institution to solve
             CPRs as being the "just right" solution, because it is at
             just the correct scope. © Springer Science+Business
             Media, LLC 2010.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11127-010-9630-9},
   Key = {fds249493}
}

@article{fds341793,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Dorobantu, S and Fernandez, MA},
   Title = {The Use of the Left-Right Scale in Individual's Voting
             Decisions},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds341793}
}

@article{fds249496,
   Author = {Aldrich, J},
   Title = {The invisible primary and its effects on democratic
             choice},
   Journal = {Ps: Political Science & Politics},
   Volume = {42},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {33-38},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1049-0965},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000262873400018&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {<jats:p>The current method for selecting presidential
             nominees by the two major parties went into place mostly in
             1972 and certainly by 1976, after<jats:italic>Buckely v.
             Valeo</jats:italic>. It was the natural culmination of
             reform efforts over the history of the republic in that,
             while prior reforms consistently invoked greater openness
             and democratic governance as rationales for their adoption,
             this method actually empowered voters as the central figures
             in determining who would be nominated (see Aldrich 1987).
             This fact became fully evident almost at once. The selection
             via primaries of senator George McGovern in 1972 and
             governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 as the Democratic presidential
             nominees arguably not only would not have happened, they
             would not have even come close to winning nomination without
             successful appeal to the voting public.</jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1049096509090027},
   Key = {fds249496}
}

@article{fds249495,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Soto, VD and Petrow, G and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {The Human Face of Economic Globalization: Mexican Migrants
             and their Support for Free Trade},
   Journal = {Journal of Latino Latin American Studies},
   Volume = {3 (Fall)},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {24-46},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds249495}
}

@article{fds249494,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Transue, JE and Lee, DJ and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey
             Experiments},
   Journal = {Political Analysis},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {143-171},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2008},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpn012},
   Abstract = {Embedding experiments within surveys has reinvigorated
             survey research. Several survey experiments are generally
             embedded within a survey, and analysts treat each of these
             experiments as self-contained. We investigate whether
             experiments are self-contained or if earlier treatments
             affect later experiments, which we call "experimental
             spillover." We consider two types of bias that might be
             introduced by spillover: mean and inference biases. Using a
             simple procedure, we test for experimental spillover in two
             data sets: the 1991 Race and Politics Survey and a survey
             containing several experiments pertaining to foreign policy
             attitudes. We find some evidence of spillover and suggest
             solutions to avoid bias. © The Author 2009. Published by
             Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for
             Political Methodology. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1093/pan/mpn012},
   Key = {fds249494}
}

@article{fds249498,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Winer, SL and Tofias, MW and Grofman, B and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {Trending Economic Factors and the Structure of Congress in
             the Growth of Government, 1930 – 2002},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {135},
   Number = {3-4},
   Pages = {415-448},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2008},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9270-x},
   Abstract = {We investigate the role of Congress in the growth of federal
             public expenditure since 1930, building on the work of Kau
             and Rubin (Public Choice, 113:389-402, 2002). The model
             incorporates majority party strength and the extent of party
             control of Congress in addition to the median ideological
             position of elected representatives. We first provide
             estimates of the relative importance of the state of
             Congress and of trending supply and demand-side economic
             factors in the evolution of federal spending. The resulting
             models are then used to simulate the consequences of the
             radical and historically unprecedented shift to the right of
             Congress in 1994/95. © 2008 Springer Science+Business
             Media, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11127-007-9270-x},
   Key = {fds249498}
}

@article{fds249500,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Rickershauser, J and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Fear in the voting booth: The 2004 presidential
             election},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {29},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {197-220},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0190-9320},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000246521300004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Every presidential election offers interesting questions for
             analysis, but some elections are more puzzling than others.
             The election of 2004 involves two linked and countervailing
             puzzles. The first is: How did President George W. Bush
             manage to win at all, avoiding the fates of George H.W. Bush
             and Jimmy Carter? The other is: Why didn't he win by a more
             substantial margin than in his first election, as all
             reelected presidents since Eisenhower were able to do? On
             the one hand, in the wake of September 11, the president had
             approval ratings around 90% and the threat of terrorism
             remained a substantial concern through Election Day. This
             would seem to afford Bush an overwhelming advantage. On the
             other hand, the public's views of the state of the economy
             and of the course of the war in Iraq were negative. We think
             that the juxtaposition of these questions will help to
             explain the outcome of the election and of the pattern of
             the results. Moreover, by unpacking our explanation of the
             vote into three policy-related issue components-economic
             retrospective evaluations, domestic policy views, and
             foreign policy views-we examine the way these preferences
             contributed to the electorate's voting decisions. ©
             Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11109-006-9018-1},
   Key = {fds249500}
}

@article{fds304638,
   Author = {Rickershauser, J and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {"It's the electability, stupid" - or maybe not?
             Electability, substance, and strategic voting in
             presidential primaries},
   Journal = {Electoral Studies},
   Volume = {26},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {371-380},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0261-3794},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003},
   Abstract = {In an experiment that tests the effects of different
             information on the role of electability and policy
             considerations in people's evaluations of presidential
             candidates, we find that both substance and electability
             affect those assessments. In the context of the 2004
             Democratic presidential primary, evaluations of candidates
             by more politically sophisticated partisans were affected by
             the experimental treatment that mentioned the traditional
             Democratic issue of social security, whereas less
             sophisticated respondents were more affected by the issue
             treatment that mentioned the economy. Because both groups
             were affected by positive electability information, we find
             some evidence of strategic considerations in voters'
             decision-making processes. In contrast to complaints that
             citizens do not use substantive information when assessing
             candidates in presidential nomination campaigns, we find
             that presidential primary candidates' electability and issue
             emphases both matter. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003},
   Key = {fds304638}
}

@article{fds249499,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Rickershauser, J and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {‘‘It’s the electability, stupid’’ or maybe not?
             Electability,Substance, and Strategic Voting in Presidential
             Primaries},
   Journal = {Electoral Studies},
   Volume = {26},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {371-380},
   Year = {2007},
   ISSN = {0261-3794},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003},
   Abstract = {In an experiment that tests the effects of different
             information on the role of electability and policy
             considerations in people's evaluations of presidential
             candidates, we find that both substance and electability
             affect those assessments. In the context of the 2004
             Democratic presidential primary, evaluations of candidates
             by more politically sophisticated partisans were affected by
             the experimental treatment that mentioned the traditional
             Democratic issue of social security, whereas less
             sophisticated respondents were more affected by the issue
             treatment that mentioned the economy. Because both groups
             were affected by positive electability information, we find
             some evidence of strategic considerations in voters'
             decision-making processes. In contrast to complaints that
             citizens do not use substantive information when assessing
             candidates in presidential nomination campaigns, we find
             that presidential primary candidates' electability and issue
             emphases both matter. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003},
   Key = {fds249499}
}

@article{fds249479,
   Author = {Blais, A and Aldrich, JH and Indridason, IH and Levine,
             R},
   Title = {Do voters vote for government coalitions? Testing downs'
             pessimistic conclusion},
   Journal = {Party Politics},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {691-705},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {1354-0688},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068806068594},
   Abstract = {In many countries, elections produce coalition governments.
             Downs points out that in such cases the rational voter needs
             to determine what coalitions are possible, i.e. to ascertain
             their probability and to anticipate the policy compromises
             that they entail. Downs adds that this may be too complex a
             task and concludes that 'most voters do not vote as though
             elections were government-selection mechanisms' (Downs,
             1957: 300). We test Downs' 'pessimistic' conclusion in the
             case of the 2003 Israeli election, an election that was
             bound to produce a coalition government and in which the
             issue of what the possible coalitions were was at the
             forefront of the campaign. We show that voters' views about
             the coalitions that could be formed after the election had
             an independent effect on vote choice, over and above their
             views about the parties, the leaders and their ideological
             orientations. We estimate that for one voter out of ten,
             coalition preferences were a decisive consideration, that
             is, they induced the voter to support a party other than the
             most preferred one. For many others, they were a factor,
             though perhaps not the dominant one. Furthermore, the least
             informed were as prone to vote on the basis of coalition
             preferences as the most informed. Our evidence disconfirms
             Downs' pessimistic view that voters will decide not to care
             about the formation of government. When they are provided
             with sufficient information about the possible options,
             voters think ahead about the coalitions that may be formed
             after the election. Copyright © 2006 SAGE
             Publications.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1354068806068594},
   Key = {fds249479}
}

@article{fds249503,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Aldrich, JH and Gelpi, C and Feaver, P and Reifler, J and Sharp,
             KT},
   Title = {Foreign policy and the electoral connection},
   Journal = {Annual Review of Political Science},
   Volume = {9},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {477-502},
   Publisher = {ANNUAL REVIEWS},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {1094-2939},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000238980300022&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Public opinion is central to representation, democratic
             accountability, and decision making. Yet, the public was
             long believed to be relatively uninterested in foreign
             affairs, absent an immediate threat to safety and welfare.
             It had become conventional to say that "voting ends at
             water's edge." We start the examination of the scholarly
             understanding of the role of foreign affairs in public
             opinion and voting at that low point of view. Much
             subsequent development saw an increasing degree of holding
             and using of attitudes and beliefs about foreign affairs
             among the public. Moving in parallel with developments in
             political psychology, theoretical and methodological
             advances led to an increasingly widely shared view that the
             public holds reasonably sensible and nuanced views, that
             these help shape their political behaviors, and that these,
             in turn, help shape and constrain foreign policy
             making.},
   Doi = {10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.111605.105008},
   Key = {fds249503}
}

@article{fds249502,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Blais, A and Indridason, I and Levine, R},
   Title = {Do Voters Vote for Government Coalitions? Testing Downs'
             Pessimistic Conclusion},
   Journal = {Party Politics},
   Volume = {12},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {fds249502}
}

@article{fds249501,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {The 2004 Presidential Election: The Emergence of a Permanent
             Majority?},
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {120},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {35-57},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {Spring},
   ISSN = {0032-3195},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000228380400002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Key = {fds249501}
}

@article{fds304637,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {The 2004 presidential election: The emergence of a permanent
             majority?},
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {120},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {33-57},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0032-3195},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000228380400002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Doi = {10.1002/j.1538-165X.2005.tb00537.x},
   Key = {fds304637}
}

@article{fds249505,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, WPR and Diamond, M and Diskin, A and Levine,
             R and Scotto, TJ},
   Title = {Strategic Abandonment or Sincerely Second Best? The 1999
             Israeli Prime Ministerial Election},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {66},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {706-728},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00273.x},
   Abstract = {The Israeli election for Prime Minister in 1999 featured
             five candidates. Three, including a major, centrally located
             candidate, Yitzhak Mordechai, withdrew from competition
             during the two days before the voting. Mordechai withdrew in
             large measure in reaction to the strategic decisions of
             voters, that is, some voters who favored him deserted his
             candidacy as his poll standings declined. We use surveys
             conducted during the 1999 campaign to estimate models of
             strategic voting behavior based on the multicandidate
             calculus of voting. We find that strategic voting in the
             Israeli, majority-with-runoff electoral system closely
             resembled the level and nature of strategic voting found in
             the more nearly pure plurality systems for which the
             statistical models were originally developed. The result is
             support for the reasoning Mordechai provided for his
             decision, illustrating the interlocking nature of strategic
             decisions between candidates and voters.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00273.x},
   Key = {fds249505}
}

@article{fds16119,
   Author = {J.H. Aldrich and James Alt},
   Title = {Introduction},
   Journal = {Political Analysis},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds16119}
}

@article{fds309851,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models},
   Journal = {Political Analysis},
   Editor = {Aldrich, JH and Alt, J},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds309851}
}

@article{fds249540,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Abramson, P and Rohde, D},
   Title = {Will Changing the Rules Change the Game?: Front-loading and
             the 2004 Presidential Nomination},
   Journal = {The Berkeley Electronic Press},
   Volume = {1},
   Number = {3},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {May},
   Key = {fds249540}
}

@article{fds249490,
   Author = {Aldrich, J and Alt, J},
   Title = {Introduction to the Special Issue},
   Journal = {Political Analysis},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {309-315},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2003},
   ISSN = {1047-1987},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000186431100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {<jats:p>This special issue is devoted to original articles
             that reflect recent progress in one of the most exciting
             developments in Political Science, the National Science
             Foundation's (NSF) initiative called Empirical Implications
             of Theoretical Models (EITM). This initiative reflects the
             ideas and hard work of the Political Science team there, Jim
             Granato and Frank Scioli, backed up by the contributions of
             an EITM panel that assembled at NSF in July 2001, some of
             whose observations we mention below. The challenge set by
             the EITM program is straightforward: to improve our
             theoretical work so that it yields more testable hypotheses
             and to improve our methodological work so that testing is
             made more effective and informative about theories. It is
             hard to object to this, but it also turns out to be hard to
             meet fully. The EITM initiative contains several components
             designed to close the gap between theoretical derivation and
             empirical test. This issue represents one component,
             presenting some of the most innovative work in the
             discipline on the current research frontier in
             EITM.</jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.1093/pan/mpg019},
   Key = {fds249490}
}

@article{fds249504,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Battista, JSC},
   Title = {Conditional Party Government in the States},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Volume = {46, Issue 1},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {164-172},
   Publisher = {JSTOR},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088420},
   Abstract = {We extend theories of congressional parties and committees
             to the state legislative setting, using the variation among
             legislatures to explore the links between elections and
             parties and between parties and committees. We examine
             elections by comparing the electrol concentration of parties
             to measures of conditional party government. We examine
             informational and partisan theories of committees by looking
             to the relationship between committee representativeness and
             conditional party government. With data from eleven states,
             we find that competitive party systems breed highly
             polorized legisalative parties, and these two traits lead to
             representative committees.},
   Doi = {10.2307/3088420},
   Key = {fds249504}
}

@article{fds341795,
   Author = {Aldrich, JA},
   Title = {Congress: The Electoral Connection: Reflections on Its First
             Quarter-Century},
   Journal = {Ps: Political Science & Politics},
   Volume = {34},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {255-256},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096501000440},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1049096501000440},
   Key = {fds341795}
}

@article{fds249534,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Paolino, P and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Challenges to the American two-party system: Evidence from
             the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 presidential
             elections},
   Journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
   Volume = {53},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {495-522},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2000},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1065-9129},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000165398600003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Recent successes by independent presidential candidates
             raise questions about the stability of the American
             two-party system. Students of electoral behavior point to
             party decline, whereas analysts of party organization see
             growth and transformation. Analyses of the 1968, 1980, 1992,
             and 1996 National Election Study surveys are used to
             determine whether support for Wallace, Anderson, and Perot
             resulted from dissatisfaction with the current two-party
             system. We find that there has been little erosion of
             support for the major political parties between 1968 and
             1996. Americans with low levels of support for the major
             political parties were more likely to support Wallace in
             1968 and Perot in 1992 and 1996. But to a large extent,
             support for Wallace, Anderson, and Perot resulted from
             dissatisfaction with the major-party candidates. Support for
             the major parties themselves has not eroded enough to
             provide a systemic opportunity for an independent candidate
             or for a new political party to end the Republican and
             Democratic duopoly.},
   Doi = {10.1177/106591290005300303},
   Key = {fds249534}
}

@article{fds249536,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {The republican revolution and the house appropriations
             committee},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {62},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1-33},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2000},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0022-3816},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000086334000001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {This study applies the theory of "conditional party
             government" to the interaction between the Republican party
             and the Appropriations Committee in the 104th House, seen in
             the context of developments since the 96th Congress. As
             expected by the theory, we find that the relatively
             homogenous preferences of the Republican contingent in the
             House led them to adopt new institutional arrangements to
             enhance the powers of their leaders, which in turn were used
             to advance the party's policy goals. Given that the
             leadership decided to use Appropriations as one of the
             vehicles of major policy change, they and the Conference
             sought to monitor the committee's actions, and to influence
             it to behave as they wanted. The leaders used their enhanced
             powers over incentives and with regard to the agenda to
             advance the party cause. Both leaders and the Conference
             sought to block policy shifts away from what they wanted,
             but facilitated changes in the desired direction. Finally,
             we expected to see evidence of the increasing applicability
             of the theory over time, culminating in the developments of
             the 104th Congress, and this expectation was borne
             out.},
   Doi = {10.1111/0022-3816.00001},
   Key = {fds249536}
}

@article{fds249535,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Southern Parties in State and Nation},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {62},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {643-670},
   Year = {2000},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00028},
   Doi = {10.1111/0022-3816.00028},
   Key = {fds249535}
}

@article{fds15348,
   Author = {J.H. Aldrich},
   Title = {Political Parties in a Critical Era},
   Journal = {American Politics Quarterly},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {1},
   Year = {1999},
   Key = {fds15348}
}

@article{fds341797,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Positive Theory, Normative Theory, and Practical Politics:
             Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady's
             Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American
             Politics},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Volume = {91},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {421-423},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2952366},
   Doi = {10.2307/2952366},
   Key = {fds341797}
}

@article{fds341798,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Rohde, DW},
   Title = {The transition to Republican rule in the house: Implications
             for theories of congressional politics},
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {112},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {541-567},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657691},
   Doi = {10.2307/2657691},
   Key = {fds341798}
}

@article{fds249506,
   Author = {Rohde, D and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Theories of Party in the Legislature and the Transition to
             Republican Rule in the House},
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {112},
   Number = {4},
   Year = {1997},
   Key = {fds249506}
}

@article{fds249507,
   Author = {Abramson, P and Paolino, P and Rohde, DW and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {The Problem of Third-Party and Independent Candidates in the
             American Political System: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot in
             Comparative Perspective},
   Journal = {Political Studies Quarterly},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {3},
   Year = {1995},
   Month = {Fall},
   Key = {fds249507}
}

@article{fds341799,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Paolino, P and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics:
             Wallace, Anderson, and Perot},
   Journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
   Volume = {110},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {349-349},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {1995},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2152568},
   Doi = {10.2307/2152568},
   Key = {fds341799}
}

@article{fds249509,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Michael Alvarez and R},
   Title = {Issues and the Presidency Primary Voter},
   Journal = {Political Behavior},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {289-317},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {1994},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01498953},
   Abstract = {Most agree that voting in presidential general elections is
             largely contingent on the evaluations of the candidates,
             issues, and parties. Yet in presidential primary elections
             the determinants of voter choices are less clear.
             Partisanship is inconsequential, information about candidate
             personalities and policy positions is scarce, and a fourth
             factor, expectations, may influence voters. In this paper,
             we reconsider the influence of political issues in
             presidential primaries. We argue that past work has not
             adequately considered how issues matter in primary
             elections. Primaries are intraparty affairs, and the
             political issues that typically divide the parties are not
             very relevant in primaries. Instead, we focus on the policy
             issues each candidate chooses to emphasize in their quest
             for the nomination, which we call policy priorities. With
             data gathered about media coverage of the presidential
             contenders in the 1988 primaries, and using exit poll data
             from the 1988 Super Tuesday primaries, we show that issues,
             as policy priorities, do matter in presidential primary
             elections. This research also implies that primary campaigns
             matter, since information concerning the policy priorities
             of the candidates reaches the intended audience. © 1994
             Plenum Publishing Corporation.},
   Doi = {10.1007/BF01498953},
   Key = {fds249509}
}

@article{fds249508,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Model of a Legislature with Two Parties and a Committee
             System},
   Journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {3},
   Year = {1994},
   Month = {August},
   Key = {fds249508}
}

@article{fds249510,
   Author = {Rahn, WM and Borgida, E and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate
             Appraisal},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Volume = {88},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {193-199},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {1994},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2944891},
   Abstract = {In this note we elaborate on the conditions under which
             on-line and memory-based strategies of political candidate
             evaluation can be implemented. We suggest that the structure
             of information may be an important contextual variable
             affecting the voter's choice of these strategies. In
             addition, we propose that citizens with less political
             sophistication are particularly sensitive to structural
             differences in the political information environment. We use
             an experimental design that manipulates the
             information-processing context to test these ideas. Our
             results suggest that the context in which information is
             presented plays a critical role in moderating the influence
             of individual differences in political sophistication. ©
             1994, American Political Science Association. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.2307/2944891},
   Key = {fds249510}
}

@article{fds249511,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Grant, RW},
   Title = {The Antifederalists, the First Congress, and the First
             Parties},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {55},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {295-326},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {1993},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0022-3816},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1993LB05800001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Doi = {10.2307/2132267},
   Key = {fds249511}
}

@article{fds249512,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Turnout and Rational Choice},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Year = {1993},
   Month = {February},
   Key = {fds249512}
}

@article{fds249514,
   Author = {Niemi, RG and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {El sexto sistma de partidos estadunidense: El realineamiento
             do los anos sesenta y los partidos entrados en los
             candidatos},
   Journal = {Estados Unidos},
   Volume = {II},
   Number = {4},
   Year = {1992},
   Month = {Winter},
   Key = {fds249514}
}

@article{fds249513,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH and Paolino, P and Rohde,
             DW},
   Title = {“Sophisticated” Voting in the 1988 Presidential
             Primaries},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Volume = {86},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {55-69},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {1992},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0003-0554},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1992HK86200005&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {Voters in multicandidate contests may confront circumstances
             under which it is in their interest to vote for a second- or
             even lower-ranked candidate. The U.S. electoral system,
             typically offering a choice between only two major
             contenders, rarely presents opportunities for this
             “sophisticated” voting. In presidential primaries,
             however, many plausible candidates may compete. We
             investigate the presence of sophisticated voting in the 1988
             presidential primaries, using data from the National
             Election Study's Super Tuesday survey. We examine patterns
             of voting types based on ordinal measures of preferences
             among candidates and assessments of their chances of winning
             their party's nomination and estimate several models of
             choice, testing the multicandidate calculus of voting. Among
             both Republicans and Democrats, respondents' choices were
             consistent with the calculus of voting and thus with
             sophisticated voting. © 1992, American Political Science
             Association. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.2307/1964015},
   Key = {fds249513}
}

@article{fds249515,
   Author = {Bianco, WT and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Game-Theoretic Model of Party Affiliation of Candidates
             and Office Holders},
   Journal = {Mathematical and Computer Modeling},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {8-9},
   Pages = {103-116},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {1992},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(92)90090-8},
   Abstract = {In this paper, we develop a formal model of ambition theory,
             extending it to account for the choice of party affiliation.
             We begin by translating the expected utility, "calculus of
             candidacy" to the choice party affiliation. The model is
             then used to develop two game-theoretic models of
             affiliation. The first game models the affiliation decisions
             of an incumbent and a challenger within a single
             constituency. Our analysis shows these decisions to be
             fundamentally interdependent. Switches in affiliation can
             occur because of shifts in the electoral support for the
             parties, but also because politicians want to avoid
             contested primaries. Moving beyond one district, we show how
             the affiliation decisions of candidates running for
             different offices or in different districts are also
             interdependent. The analysis indicates that when electoral
             strength depends on who runs, politicians affiliated with a
             decaying political party are involved in a collective-action
             game. © 1992.},
   Doi = {10.1016/0895-7177(92)90090-8},
   Key = {fds249515}
}

@article{fds249537,
   Author = {Harper, RK and Aldrich, J},
   Title = {The political economy of sugar legislation},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Volume = {70},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {299-314},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {1991},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0048-5829},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1991FN68900004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {The findings of this paper are a rather straightforward
             account of the political economy of senatorial voting on the
             sugar program. In the spirit of Stigler and Peltzman's
             accounts of interest group activity, voting on sugar is
             indeed related to the concentration of economic interests in
             the Senators' states. States with high concentrations of
             sugar growers and processing tend to vote for the program,
             those with high concentration of users tend to vote against
             it. The emergence of corn syrup as a sugar substitute and
             its subsequent interests in the program further supports
             this perspective. These concentrated interests are
             associated with conditions ripe for overcoming the
             collective action problem and, we infer, use their
             organizations to influence senatorial behavior. The
             political variables suggest countervailing forces which can
             be interpreted, at least in part, as further examples of
             organized (here, politically organized) influences on the
             interests of Senators. Thus, while the model is one of
             opposing interests, those of producers and users tend to
             influence different Senators. The major group-interest
             trade-off, then, is between the pull of organized interests
             in the constituency with that of party organization at the
             national (or national institutional level), at least for
             those for whom the pull is in opposite directions. It is
             clear, then, that variables representing (concentrated)
             consumer interests as well as variables representing grower
             and processor interests as well as variables representing
             grower and processor interests are significant in
             determining voting patterns on sugar legislation in the
             Senate. This model, therefore, is not one in which one-sided
             organizational interests operate politically uncontested.
             That, even so, consumer interests are not powerful enough to
             prevent sugar programs from passing is clear at one level,
             due to the existence of the program over most of this
             period. The existing level of the transfers from consumers
             to producers and of deadweight losses must be reflective of
             the magnitude of their respective free rider problems. Yet
             voting on the program to renew or alter those benefits at
             any level clearly reflects these interests and their
             interplay. © 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers.},
   Doi = {10.1007/BF00156237},
   Key = {fds249537}
}

@article{fds249516,
   Author = {Young, J and Thomsen, CJ and Borgida, E and Sullivan, JL and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {When self-interest makes a difference: The role of construct
             accessibility in political reasoning},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {27},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {271-296},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {1991},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90016-y},
   Abstract = {Previous research has generally shown that self-interest is
             less influential than symbolic beliefs in determining
             people's policy preferences. The present study examined the
             hypothesis that one reason why self-interest may not exert a
             strong influence on political reasoning is that it is less
             cognitively accessible than other applicable constructs. We
             examined the influence of both individual differences in
             issue-relevant experience and the priming of self-interest
             on political judgments and reasoning. Subjects (N = 66) were
             initially classified as having either a high or low level of
             experience for each of two issues (environmental pollution
             and social service spending). Several weeks later, subjects
             participated in two ostensibly unrelated studies. The first
             conveyed the priming manipulation; the second involved
             completing questionnaires to assess subjects' opinions about
             hypothetical legislative proposals and their reasoning with
             respect to ambiguous political scenarios. We predicted that
             priming would result in greater self-interested reasoning
             about issues, regardless of the individual's level of
             experience. We also expected individuals with more extensive
             issue-related experience to consider their self-interest to
             a greater extent when reasoning about political issues.
             Priming, in turn, was expected to lead to different policy
             preferences among low and high experience subjects, since
             different issue positions would best serve the
             self-interests of these two groups. These predictions were
             generally supported. The implications of these findings for
             theory and research on social and political cognition are
             discussed. © 1991.},
   Doi = {10.1016/0022-1031(91)90016-y},
   Key = {fds249516}
}

@article{fds249489,
   Author = {ALDRICH, J},
   Title = {On equilibrium of political institutions},
   Journal = {Mathematical Social Sciences},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {309-310},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {1990},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0165-4896},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:A1990EZ91000019&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Doi = {10.1016/0165-4896(90)90019-4},
   Key = {fds249489}
}

@article{fds249517,
   Author = {Sullivan, JL and Borgida, E and Rahn, W and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {Candidate Appraisal and Human Nature: Man and Superman in
             the 1988 Election},
   Journal = {Political Psychology},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds249517}
}

@article{fds249538,
   Author = {Sullivan, JL and Borgida, E and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Foreign Policy and Voting in Presidential Elections: Are
             Candidates 'Waltzing before a Blind Audience?'},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Year = {1989},
   Month = {March},
   Key = {fds249538}
}

@article{fds341800,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and Sullivan, JL and Borgida, E},
   Title = {Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates
             “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Volume = {83},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {123-141},
   Year = {1989},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956437},
   Abstract = {While candidates regularly spend much time and effort
             campaigning on foreign and defense policies, the thrust of
             prevailing scholarly opinion is that voters possess little
             information and weak attitudes on these issues, which
             therefore have negligible impact on their voting behavior.
             We resolve this anomaly by arguing that public attitudes on
             foreign and defense policies are available and cognitively
             accessible, that the public has perceived clear differences
             between the candidates on these issues in recent elections,
             and that these issues have affected the public's vote
             choices. Data indicate that these conclusions are
             appropriate for foreign affairs issues and domestic issues.
             © 1989, American Political Science Association. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.2307/1956437},
   Key = {fds341800}
}

@article{fds249518,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH and McGinnis, MD},
   Title = {A model of party constraints on optimal candidate
             positions},
   Journal = {Mathematical and Computer Modelling},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {4-5},
   Pages = {437-450},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {1989},
   ISSN = {0895-7177},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(89)90415-9},
   Abstract = {In this paper, we propose a generalized version of the
             spatial model of electoral competition. A model of political
             parties is developed and a general theorem about the
             existence of distinct Nash equilibria distributions of party
             activists is proven. Candidates are assumed to acquire
             resources from the party and its activists and through the
             candidate's own campaign organization to assist in their
             campaign efforts, and they are assumed to value both winning
             and policy outcomes. We then explore the formal properties
             of this more general model, especially examining the impact
             of party-based resources and of candidate policy preferences
             on the optimal location of candidates. We show, in
             particular, that such positions will, in general, be
             divergent, and yet there will be regular differentiation
             between the nominees of the two political parties. ©
             1989.},
   Doi = {10.1016/0895-7177(89)90415-9},
   Key = {fds249518}
}

@article{fds249539,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Rohde, DW and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Progressive Ambition among United States Senators:
             1972-1988},
   Journal = {Journal of Politics},
   Volume = {49},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {3-35},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {1987},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131132},
   Abstract = {A rational-choice model is used to account for the decisions
             of United States Senators to run for president. The model
             predicts that senators will be more likely to run for
             president if their relative costs of running are low, if
             they have no political liabilities that might reduce their
             chances of winning, and if they have a propensity to take
             risks, which we measure by their past willingness to take
             risks in running for the Senate. The model works well in
             accounting for the decisions of Democrats to seek the
             presidency in 1972, 1976, and 1984, and can explain why few
             Republican senators ran in 1980. The model is used to
             predict which senators in the 99th Congress are relatively
             likely to run for president in 1988. The model works better
             in accounting for the past behavior of Democrats than
             Republicans, and also generates more plausible predictions
             about future Democratic presidential candidates. This
             partisan difference results largely from the different
             opportunity structures of the two parties. Finally, we
             discuss the changing dynamics of the nomination process and
             the implications of this change both for our model and for
             American electoral politics. © 1987, Southern Political
             Science Association. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.2307/2131132},
   Key = {fds249539}
}

@article{fds249519,
   Author = {Young, J and Borgida, E and Sullivan, J and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {Personal Agendas and the Relationship between Self Interest
             and Voting Behavior},
   Journal = {Social Psychology Quarterly},
   Year = {1987},
   Key = {fds249519}
}

@article{fds249520,
   Author = {Simon, D and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Turnout in American National Elections},
   Journal = {Research in Micropolitics},
   Volume = {1},
   Year = {1986},
   Key = {fds249520}
}

@article{fds249521,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Year = {1983},
   Month = {December},
   Key = {fds249521}
}

@article{fds249522,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Spatial Model with Party Activists: Implications for
             Electoral Dynamics" and "Rejoinder"},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Year = {1983},
   Key = {fds249522}
}

@article{fds249523,
   Author = {Abramson, PR and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {The Decline of Electoral Participation in
             America},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Year = {1982},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds249523}
}

@article{fds249524,
   Author = {Niemi, RG and Rabinowitz, G and Rohde, DW and Aldrich,
             JH},
   Title = {The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A
             Report on Some New Issue Question Formats},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Year = {1982},
   Month = {May},
   Key = {fds249524}
}

@article{fds249525,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Dynamic Model of Presidential Nomination
             Campaigns},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Year = {1980},
   Month = {September},
   Key = {fds249525}
}

@article{fds249526,
   Author = {Ostrom, C and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Regularities, Verification, and Systemization: Twenty Five
             Years of Research in Political Science},
   Journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
   Year = {1980},
   Key = {fds249526}
}

@article{fds249527,
   Author = {Ostrom, C and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {The Relationship Between Size and Stability in the Major
             Power International System},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Year = {1978},
   Month = {November},
   Key = {fds249527}
}

@article{fds249529,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {The Dilemma of a Paretian Liberal: Some Consequences of
             Sen's Theorem" and "Liberal Games: Further Thoughts on
             Social Choice and Game Theory},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Year = {1977},
   Month = {Summer},
   Key = {fds249529}
}

@article{fds249530,
   Author = {McKelvey, R and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972
             U.S. Presidential Elections},
   Journal = {American Political Science Review},
   Year = {1977},
   Month = {March},
   Key = {fds249530}
}

@article{fds249528,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Electoral Choice in 1972: A Test of Some Theorems of the
             Spatial Model of Electoral Competition},
   Journal = {Journal of Mathematical Sociology},
   Volume = {5},
   Year = {1977},
   Key = {fds249528}
}

@article{fds249531,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Some Problems in Testing Two Rational Models of
             Participation},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Year = {1976},
   Month = {November},
   Key = {fds249531}
}

@article{fds249533,
   Author = {Cnudde, C and Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Probing the Bounds of Conventional Wisdom: A Comparison of
             Regression, Probit, and Discriminant Analysis},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Year = {1975},
   Month = {August},
   Key = {fds249533}
}

@article{fds249532,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Candidate Support Functions inthe 1968 Election: An
             Empirical Application of the Spatial Model},
   Journal = {Public Choice},
   Year = {1975},
   Month = {Summer},
   Key = {fds249532}
}


%% Papers Accepted   
@article{fds154654,
   Author = {J. Aldrich and Paul R. Abramson and Andre Blais and Mathew Diamond and Abraham
             Diskin, Indridi Indridason and Daniel Lee and Renan
             Levine},
   Title = {Comparing Strategic Voting under FPTP and
             PR},
   Journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
   Year = {2008},
   Key = {fds154654}
}


%% Other   
@misc{fds303765,
   Author = {Aldrich, J},
   Title = {Review of On the Side of Angels: An Appreciation of Parties
             and Partisanship, by Nancy L. Rosenblum},
   Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {1541-0986},
   Key = {fds303765}
}

@misc{fds341794,
   Author = {Aldrich, JH},
   Title = {Parties, Partisanship, and Democratic Politics},
   Journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
   Volume = {7},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {624-625},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709990582},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1537592709990582},
   Key = {fds341794}
}

@misc{fds249403,
   Author = {Aldrich, J},
   Title = {A Review of 'Party Influence in Congress'},
   Journal = {Congress & the Presidency},
   Volume = {36},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {203-205},
   Publisher = {Taylor & Francis (Routledge)},
   Year = {2009},
   ISSN = {0734-3469},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07343460902956470},
   Doi = {10.1080/07343460902956470},
   Key = {fds249403}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Political Science * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Master * Foreign Exchange * Reload * Login