ENDNOTES

[1] Since the topic of this paper was proposed, at least four books have, appeared in which the authors address themselves to the problems of interpreting electoral behavior in the context of realignment: Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. with Charles D. Hadley, Transformations of the American Party System(New York: W. W. Norton, 1975); Louis Maisel and Paul M Sacks, eds. The Future of Political Parties (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 1975); Warren Miller and Theresa Levitin, Leadership and Change (Cambridge. Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, 1976); Norman H. Nie, Sidney Verba and John R. Petrocik,The Changing American Voter (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1976).

[2] V. 0. Key. Jr. , "A Theory of Critical Elections," Journal of Politics Vol. 17 (Feb. 1955), pp. 3- 18.

[3] Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren.E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1960), pp. 531-538; and Gerald Pomper, ''Classification of Presidential Elections," Journal of Politics, Vol. 29 (August 1967). pp. 535-66.

[4] Charles Sellers. "The Equilibrium Cycle in Two-Party Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29 (Spring 1965), pp. 16-38; W. Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970); See also, James L. Sundquist, Dynamics of the Party System (Washington, D. C. : The Brookings Institution, 1973).

[5]. See especially W. Dean Burnham, Jerome M. Clubb and William H. Flanigan, "Partisan Realignment: A Systemic Perspective" in Silbey, Bogue and Flanigan, The History of American Electoral Behavior (Princeton. N. J.: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).

[6] Kristi Andersen. "Generation, Partisan Shift, and Realignment: A Glance Back to the New Deal", in Nie. Verba and Petrocik, The Changing American Voter, pp. 74-95; Paul Beck, "A Socialization Theory of Partisan Realignment," in Niemi, ed. New Views of Children and Politics (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974), pp. 200-206; Philip E. Converse, "Public Opinion and Voting Behavior," in Greenstein and PoIsby, eds ., Handbook of Political Science, Volume 4 (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 75-169.

[7] Andersen, "Generation, Partisan Shift, and Realignment," p. 91; see also, Kristi Andersen, "Political Generations and Partisan Change," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1975).

[8] Beck, "A socialization Theory of Partisan Realignment,"; and Paul Beck, "Youth and the Politics of Realignment," in Dreyer and Rosenbaum, eds., Political Opinion and Behavior, 3rd edition (North Scituate, Mass: Duxbury Press), pp. 366-373.

[9] Richard J. Trilling. "Party Image and Partisan Change," in Maisel and Sachs, eds. , pp. 63-100.

[10] Nie. Verba and Petrocik. Chap. 14; Ladd and Hadley. Chap. 3.

[11] Ladd and Hadley. Chap. 4.

[12] Arthur H. Miller. Warren E. Miller. Alden S. Paine, and Thad A. Brown, "A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization in the 1972 Election. Paper presented at the 1973 meetings of the American Political Science Association, pp. 45-54.

[13] Norman H. Nie with Kristi Arldersen, "Mass Belief Systems Revisited: Political Change and Attitude Structure," Journal of Politics, Vol. 36 (1971) pp. 540-591: Philip E. Converse. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in David Apter. ed. Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press. 1964), Chap. 6.

[14] Nie and Andersen. Figure 4.

[15] Nie, Verba and Petrocik, Chap. 7.

[16] Richard W. Boyd. "Popular Control of Public Policy: A Normal Vote .Analysis of the 1968 Election," American Political Science Review, Vol. 66 (June 1972) pp. 429-470; Gerald M. Pomper, "From Confusion to Clarity: Issues and American Voters, 1956-1968," American Political Science Review, Vol. 66 (June 1972) pp. 415-428; Nie, Verba and Petrocik, Chap. 10.

[17] Converse, "Public Opinion and Voting Behavior," pp. 125-134.

[18] Nie, Verba and Petrocik, Chap. 4.

[19] There are several summaries in the literature of the possible "scenarios" for realignment. See, for example. Ladd and Hadley. pp. 1-27; Edward C. Dreyer and Walter A. Rosenbaum, Political Opinion and Behavior, (3rd Edition; North Scituate, Mass. : Duxbury Press, 1976), pp. 325-333.

[20] Sundquist. pp. 369-373; Converse, "Public Opinion and Voting Behavior," pp. 146-147.

[21] Converse, " Public Opinion and Voting Behavior," pp. 106-107.

[22] Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority (New Rochell, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1969).

[23] Richard M.. Scammon and Ben J. Wattenberg, The Real Majority (New York: Coward- McCann, 1970).

[24] Miller and Levitin, Leadership and Change.

[25] In American analysis, this topic focuses on state party systems. See. Nancy H. Zingale, "Third Party Alignments in a Two-Party System: The Case of Minnesota," in Silbey, Bogue and Flanigan (forthcoming).

[26] W. Dean Burnham, "American Politics in the 1970's: Beyond Party?" in Chambers and Burnham. eds. The American Party Systems (2nd edition; New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 308-357; Ladd and Hadley, Chap.. 6; Nie. Verba and Petrocik, Chap. 19.

[27] Ladd and Hadley. p. 301.

[28] Ibid., p. 301-302.

[29] Nie. Verba and Petroclk. p. 354.

[30] Burnharn, American Politics in the 1970s: Beyond Party?" p. 308.

[31] Nie, Verba and Petrocik. p. 157.

[32] John R. Petrocik, "An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification," Political Methodology, Vol. 1 (Summer 1974). pp. 31-48.

[33] As a percentage of all voters the even ticket-splitters increase from 8% in 1964 to 14% in 1968 and 19% in 1972. Predominantly Democratic ticket-splitters are 19%, 17%, and 20% while Republican ticket- splitters are 14%, 17%, and 18% in the same elections.

[34] Nie, Verba and Petrocik, Chaps. 1, 10, and 16.

[35] Gamma is a misleading indicator of linear association since like Yule's Q, its 2 x 2 equivalent, it is responsive to a "corner correlation." In analysis of vote choice and party, gamma will be relatively low if there are defectors in both directions, high if they are one-way, regardless of the distribution of the party loyal. Gamma is even more bizarre as a measure of issue constraint. Somer' d and Tau b are preferable measures of association: it could even be argued that the percentage of the issue consistent or the percentage of defectors are preferable indicators to any available measures of association.

[36] Miller, Miller, Raine and Brown, pp. 82-87.

[37] Nie,Verba, and Petrocik, pp. 217-223.

[38] Ibid., pp. 302-306.

[39] Pomper, "From Confusion to Clarity."

[40] Nie and Andersen, "Mass Beliefs Revisited."

[41] Pomper, "From Confusion to Clarity". Overall, the data in Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. and Charles Hadley, "Political Parties and Political Issues: Patter Differentiation Since the New Deal," Sage Professional Paper. 1973, also support this interpretation.

[42] Burnham, "American Politics in the 1970's: Beyond Party?"; Ladd and Hadley, Transformations of the Party System.

[43] Thornas E. Patterson and Robert D. McClure, "Political Advertising: Voter Reaction to Televised Political Commercials," Citizens Research Foundation Monograph, #23, 1973.

[44] In many treatments, including the original work of V. 0. Key, realignment is defined only as permanent change in the underlying partisan division, regardless of whether these changes are sufficient to insure victory for the newly advantaged party. See Key, "A Theory of Critical Elections."; Duncan MacRac., Jr. and James A. Meldrurn, "Critical Elections in Illinois: 1838- 1958, " American Political Science Review, Vol. 44 (Sept. 1960), pp. 669-683; William. H. Flanigan and Nancy H. Zingale. "The Measurement of Electoral Change," Political Methodology, Vol. 1 (Summer 1974), pp. 49-82; Campbell and Pomper do include the outcome of the election as one of the dimensions in their classifications of elections, but concern is limited to the presidential race. Campbell et al, The American Voter; Pomper, "Classification of Presidential Elections."

[45] Burnham, Clubb and Flanigan. "Partisan Realignment: A Systemic Perspective."

[46] Samuel McSeveny, Politics of Depression: Political Behavior in the Northeast, 1893 -1896 (New York: Oxford University Press. 1972.)

[47] W. Phillips Shively, "A Reinterpretation of the New Deal Realignment Based of all Things, on the Literary Digest Poll," Public Opinion Quarterly (1971).

[48] Miller and Levitin have also stressed leadership an an essential ingredient in forging realignments.

[49] W. Dean Burnham. "American Voting Behavior and the 1964 Election," Midwest Journal of Political Stience, Vol. 12 (Feb. 1968), pp. 1-40; Gerald M. Pomper, Elections in America, (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1968), pp. 118-121.

[50] Burnharn, "American Politics in the 1970s: Beyond Party?"

[51] Gerald M. Pomper, Voters' Choice (New York: Dodd. Mead and Co., 1975).

[52] A third outcome might be associated with either of these: the disappearance of the Republican Party and its replacement by a new party. The inability of the Republicans to find adherents or even sympathizers among the youngest age groups in the electorate, together with the apparent crisis in the organization and leadership of the party, suggest historical parallels with other instances of replacement of one party by another in a two-party system. See Nancy H. Zingale, "Third Party Alignments...."