TheInstitutionforSocialandPolicyStudiesatYale UniversityTHEYALEISPSSERIESElectoralRealignmentsACRITIQUEOFANAMERICANGENREDavidR.MayhewYaleUniversity PressNew Haven& London5.Myapproachinthis workhas some, albeitnotall,ofthe characteris-ticsofa metaManalysis.aretheotherpolitical scientistsnotedabovewhomadeinfluentialanalyticmovesduringthe1970sand1980s.Thereis apointinoperatinginthisfashion:whatIamcallingthefully fleshed-out versionoftherealignmentsperspectivehasproven, I believe,tobeparticularlyengag-ingandinfluential.Asananalytic technique, I resolvethelarge realign-mentsperspectiveintofifteendistinctempiricalclaims.InChapters 3through6,drawingonrelevantprimaryandsecondarysourceswhereappropriate,I evaluatethesefif-teenclaimsfortheirempiricalvalidityandilluminativepower.5InChapter7,I closewithsomeconclusionsandafewpointsofmoregeneralinterpretive criticism.Inthatchapter,aswellasearlier, IpointupwhatIamnotdoinginthiswork. Iamnottryingtoarguethatall American elec-tionsareequal. Unquestionably,someofthemhavebeenmoreengaging,momentous,orconsequentialinvariouswaysthanothers.Itisandshouldbeacontinuingschol-arlytasktoilluminatesuchdifferences. Yetitisnothelp-fultogettrappedforeverina failedmodelofillumination.The Realignments PerspectiveWHAT ISTHEELECTORAL REALIGN-mentsperspective,andwherediditcomefrom?AsHarveyL.Schantz hasnoted,theideaofre-aligning electionssurfacedinpolitical science__.IbeforeWorldWar11.' YeteveryoneagreesthatitwasV.O. Keywhocrystallizedandpopularizedthecon-ceptinhis 1955 article"ATheoryofCritical Elections."Hereweseethebasic,trademarkdichotomizingmoveoftherealignmentsschool-theideaofsortingAmeri-canpresidentialelectionsintotwocategories: a fewthatare"critical elections,"inKey's terminology,andagreat1.Itappearedinthe writings ofArthur N: HolcombeandCortez A.M.Ewing. See Harvey L. Schantz, "Realignment BeforeV.Q.Key,Jr.,"paperpresentedatthe annual conventionofthe Southern Political Science Asso-ciation, Atlanta,October28-31,1998.Introduction62. VO.Key,Jr.,"ATheoryofCritical Elections,"JournalofPolitics17(1955),3-18,at4.residualmanythatarenot. Theformeraredefinedasones"inwhichvoters are,atleastfromimpressionistic evi-dence,unusuallydeeply concerned,inwhichtheextentofelectoralinvolvement is relativelyquitehigh,andinwhichthedecisiveresultsofthevotingrevealasharpalterationofthepre-existing cleavagewithintheelectorate." Addition-ally, as"perhaps...thetrulydifferentiatingcharacteristicofthissortofelection,therealignmentmademanifestinthevotinginsuchelectionsseemstopersistfor severalsucceedingelections."zUsingdatafromtownshipsinselect NewEnglandstates, Key identifiedtheelectionsof1896 (theshowdownbetweenDemocratWilliamJenningsBryanandRepubli-canWilliam McKinley)andof1928 (thecontestbetweenDemocratAlSmithandRepublicanHerbertHoover)as"critical elections"thatbroughtnotablysharpandlong-lastingchangesinvotingpatterns.Thatis all.NothingappearsinKey'sfoundationalarticleaboutanycriticalelectionspriorto1896,anypossible periodicityintheoc-currenceofsuchelections,oranydistinctivekindsofis-sueinnovationsorgovernmentpolicyresultsthatmightbeassociatedwithsuchelections. Also, Keyseemedtobackoff critical electionssomewhatfouryearslaterbyhighlightingpatternsof"secularrealignment"-thatis,9The Realignments Perspectivegradualchange-invotercoalitions.3Elsewhereinhiswritings, hiscommentsonrealignmentsarecautiousandfleeting. Still,in1955,thankstoKey,theideaofcriticalelectionscametolife.E. E.Schattschneiderweighedinwithaquitedifferentkindofcontributionin1956,whichhereissuedlargelyintactasthefifthchapterofhiswidelyreadSemisovereignPeoplein1960. Schattschneider's evocativeframingofre-alignmentswaschattyratherthandata-drivenandwasladenwithfar-reaching,ifoftenelusive,empiricalandthe-oreticalclaimsratherthan,asinKey's case,circumspectobservations.SchattschneiderzeroedinontheMcKinley-Bryanelectionof1896, "oneofthedecisive electionsinAmericanhistory," which,heasserted,broughtonapartycoalitionalalignment"powerfulenoughtodeterminethenatureofAmericanpoliticsformorethanthirtyyears."Therealignmentof1896was"perhapsthebestexampleinAmericanhistoryofthesuccessfulsubstitutionofoneconflict[thatis,onecleavagebetweenopposingclustersofinterests]foranother"-asignatureSchattschneider3. VO.Key,Jr.,"SecularRealignmentandthePartySystem," JournalofPolitics21(1959), 198-210. For a more recent statementonthe ideaofgradualasopposedtoabrupt coalitional change,seeEdwardG.Canninesand JamesA.Stimson,"TheDynamicsofIssue Evolution: The UnitedStates," ch. 5inRussellJ.Dalton; ScottC:Flanagan" and Paul Allen Beck(eds.),ElectoralChangeinAdvancedIndustrial Democracies:RealignmentorDealignment? (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1984), 151-52.The Realignments Perspective810The Realignments PerspectiveThe Realignments Perspective11Key-isthesignal featureassociatedwithSundquist'svoterrealignments. Yetinanupdatingtouchappropriatetoaneweraofpublicopinionresearch,itis opposingissue positions,ratherthan,asinSchattschneider's case,opposinginterests offwhichissue propensitiescouldinprincipleunproblematicallybe read,thataresaidto indexthecleavages.Sundquistiscautious.Heisquickwithapropositionora generalizationaboutbehaviorbyvotersorparties,butIcouldnotpinpointanyclaimsinhisworkabout,for example,thegovernmentalpolicy conse-quencesofrealignments.OfBurnham'smanyworksonelectoral realignments,threeissuedbetween1965and1970areperhapsthebestguidestohis thinking.Inhisseminalarticle "The Chang-ingShapeoftheAmerican Political Universe,"heasso-ciatedthecountry's twentieth-century declineinvoterturnoutwiththealleged electoralrealignmentofthemid-1890s.7Inhischapterintheclassicvolume The Amer-ican Party Systems,heorganizedAmerican historyintosuccessive "party systems"bracketedbyelectoral realign-ments.8AndinhisCritical Electionsandthe Mainsprings7. Walter D. Burnham, "The ChangingShapeoftheAmerican PoliticalUniverse," American PoliticalScience Review59(1965),7-28.8. Walter Dean Burnham, "PartySystemsandthePoliticalProcess," ch.10inWilliam N. ChambersandBurnham(eds.)~TheAmerican PartySySMtems: StagesofPolitical Development(NewYork:Oxford University Press,1967).4. E. E. Schattschneider, "United States:TheFunctional ApproachtoParty Government,"194-215,inSigmundNeumann(ed.), Modern PoliticalParties: ApproachestoComparative Politics (Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress, 1956); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist'sViewofDemocracy in America(NewYork:Holt, Rinehart,andWinston,1960). ch.5,at78,81-82,86.5. James L. Sundquist, Dynamicsofthe Party