Ronald Gordon Ziegler
One ancillary instrument which might be construed from these observations
involves the identification of four types of Presidential elections into which we might
classify such contests in this country. A typology of such election classifications can be
constructed utilizing what can be garnered from the data examined here. Such a
methodology goes beyond other such endeavors, such as those around realignment theory.
Along the vertical axis can be located normal elections, retrospective contests, those
involving some irregular event or set of circumstances, and those influenced by third party
campaigns. Each of these can be plotted along a continuum of success level.
Categorization of American Presidential Elections
Normal or Regular 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1980, 1988
Retrospective Evaluation 1900, 1916, 1956, 1972, 1984
Irregular Events 1896, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964, 1976
Third Party Campaigns 1912, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996
Normal or Regular Elections
Eight of the elections held in the 20th Century are termed 'normal' elections
because they involve an ascent of the particular hegemonic party system structure.
Importantly, the categorization operates from the perspective that the Republican Party
has been in a position of hegemony throughout the last century, at least when it comes to
the Presidency. These eight are termed normal because they involve an assent of the
existing party system. Each one also involves a different candidate than the one successful
in the previous election.
In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt was an incumbent, but he had succeeded to the
office upon the assassination of William McKinley. Nonetheless, it might be assumed that
his election was an approval of what was at least perceived as a continuation of what had
gone before from the party in power. A similar assessment of 1908 is made because Taft
was now the candidate, and his election involved a 'vote of confidence' in the party in
control of the White House.
The 1920 election of Warren Harding is put in this category due to the sense that it
involved, as the popular slogan of the campaign had it, 'a return to normalcy' of
Republican control -- a return to the perceived normal state of affairs before the election
of the Democrat Wilson. Both 1924 and 1928 are 'normal' because while there was a vote
of confidence, each time it was a different candidate (although the 1928 vote of Hoover
drew considerable support from the 'progressive' vote that had been cast separately in
1924 -- Hoover was, despite subsequent portrayal, rather a 'progressive' himself).
Similarly, 1952 is termed 'normal' as the electorate is viewed as voting to return to the
normalcy of the overall hegemony of Republican control of the previous period (that is,
prior to 1932). With Reagan's election in 1980, the sense is that the country was seeking
to return once again to the 'normal' state prior to the Great Society, and 1988 is so
classified because of the perception that Bush represented a continuation of the 'Reagan
Revolution.'
Retrospective Evaluation
Although Wilson was not of the assumed hegemonic party, his re-election
represents some acceptance of the work of his first term. For 1900, 1956, 1972, and 1984,
incumbent Republican Presidents received what amounted to mandates of approbation, as
well. There is a level of differentiation between the first of these five and the latter four
due to the level of approbation involved, Wilson only narrowly winning a second term,
while FDR, Ike, Nixon, and Reagan earned substantive approval for performance from the
voters. All elections may be retrospective by degree (Fiorina 1981), but the category here
refers to a broader spirit of approval or acceptance.
Irregular Events
The first election of McKinley is termed an irregular event because of the general
shift in voting patterns which occurred. It is often sighted as an archetypal 'realignment' of
forces in the electorate, and one which remained in ascendancy for a century. Although
1932 is commonly seen as a similar realignment of force attributable to the economic
depression the country and world was suffering through, it was a realignment that
survived only due to the abnormal world conditions of the war and only as long as FDR
was the candidate.
1936 should probably be classified as an irregular case, as well, given the
persistence of the economic travails, as would both of the World War II races. It would be
impossible to assess the possibility that the election of 1964 might have fit better into one
of the other categories because of the conditions of national shock under which it actually
took place. Had the contest been between Kennedy and Goldwater, it could have been,
depending upon which one won, a retrospective evaluation had JFK won or a normal
election had Goldwater been victorious. With the assassination and the national mood of
shock over it, the election held effectively in the Kennedy 'wake' took place under irregular
circumstances which determined its outcome. In a similar vein, Carter's victory in 1976
was in the shadow of Watergate (there were also some rather trying economic conditions
prevailing at the time), and it was a major factor in the outcome of the election.
Third Party Campaigns
In each of the other six elections of the 20th century, the candidate that won did so
by and large, if not exclusively, due to the strength of a third (or in 1948 also a fourth)
candidate which split the hegemony of the prevailing alignment of forces. In each of these
except 1968, had it not been for the alternative candidacies, the winner would not have
been successful in the election. For 1968, Nixon was able to withstand the drain of votes
and emerge victorious, although he did so by a narrow margin only.
The Horizontal Axis
It is also possible to speculate as to the degree of success of each of the events of
these elections and to plot them according to that within each category. The key criterion
here would probably be the margin of victory, but could also be extended to consider
'coat-tails' of the winning candidate, as well as the lasting effects of the vote. Elections are
delineated left to right, with movement along a continuum ranging from the 'most
successful,' although the array for each is arguable.
Normal Elections
1904, 1920, 1952, 1924, 1928, 1980, 1908, 1988
Retrospective Evaluations
1900, 1984, 1956, 1972, 1916
Irregular Events
1896, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964, 1976
Third Party Campaigns
1912, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996
In addition to the 'chance' occurrence of irregularities, there does not appear to be
much of any pattern prevalent in these elections, but with so many variables involved, that
is far from surprising. Obviously, the schema does have limitations. There does not seem
to be much predictability. Some of the usages require rather alternative interpretations of
some of the terminology involved, such as the limitation imposed by the use of the concept
of retrospective to assent and to the exclusion of rejection on retrospective evaluation
(Fiorina 1981). It may be worthy of note that in the latter two 'cycles,' there is a marked
decrease in 'normality.'Third Party Campaigns also appear to occurring with increased
frequency, although, as with the Irregular Elections, this could be a matter of chance, and
the element of chance may be at the root of the absence of any pattern in the
categorizations. The typology does provide an alternative to the realignment classifications
which have won considerable currency in the literature. It takes such factors into account
and also encompasses long and short term influences on vote choice, provides a superior
method of describing elections than the realigning, affirming, dissenting, and other
classification schemes, (Asher 1987)accounting for influences which they cannot, such as
third party campaigns.
For the next election, the set of items which can be classified under the Whitewater
may well suggest a heightened likelihood of an irregular election, but barring that, the
most likely scenario for 2000 would be the probability of a return to normalcy election
which would also elect a Republican President. Less likely would be any set of
circumstances which would involve either another Third Party or Retrospective Evaluation
marking the outcome.
However, a pattern can be discerned if the types of elections are arranged in a
clockwise direction on a dial. Beginning with the first of these elections in 1896 setting the
pattern as an 'irregular' election at the top of the dial, the other subsequent races proceed
in a clockwise direction with some consistency situating the movement from I to R to N to
T and so on until the four consecutive irregular elections from 1932 to 1944, following
which the pattern reverses itself and the elections proceed in a counter-clockwise pattern
through 1984. It appears that the cyclical pattern may have once again reversed itself into
a clockwise rotation over the last three elections. Following on that, it should be expected
that the next election in the year 2000 could very likely be an irregular contest (although
such elections are probably the least 'predictable'), followed by a retrospective evaluation
for 2004 and a normal election in 2008 -- each of them thus favoring the election of
Republicans -- basically on this metaphor taking place right 'on time.'
The only disruption of the pattern appears to be around either irregular or third
party contests, and the general reversal of the motion took place with the repeated crises
irregular elections of 1932-44. These were also the elections which otherwise have been
designated as the New Deal realignment victories of FDR. These were the only cases of
consistent Democrat victory, but Democrat wins all took place only on irregular events or
third party candidacies. The sole exception to this 'rule' would be the 1916 re-election of
Wilson, which could arguably be termed an irregular case in its own right due to the war
situation threatening the world at the time -- nor would it have occurred had it not been
for his original election due to the split caused by the 'Progressive' campaign of T.R.
'Valences' of Presidential Elections on the Electoral 'Clock'
1896 I +1 1948* T -1 Projections on expected
1900 R +1 1952 N -1 pattern
1904 N +1 1956 R -1 2000 I +1
1908 N 0 1960* T -2 2004 R +1
1912* T +1 1964* I** +1 2008 N +1
1916* R +2 -- (I +1) 1968 T -1 2012 R -1
1920 N +1 -- (N +2) 1972 R -2 2016 N +1
1924 N 0 1976* I -1 or. . .
1928 N 0 1980 N -2 2000 N -1
1932* I +2 1984 R -1 2004 R -1
1936* I 0 1988 N +1 2008 N +1
1940* I 0 1992* T +1 2012 R -1
1944* I 0 1996* T 0 2016 N +1
'Valences' indicate movement on the electoral clock, as from I to R to N to T, each
beat being a valence of 1 as the hands of the clock progress clockwise.
* denotes Democrat victories
** the irregularity of the Kennedy assassination may be the equivalent of
Schroedinger's Cat for this analysis, marking as it does the clockwise
movement in an otherwise counter-clockwise period..
It may be difficult to fathom the regular 'beat' of this electoral clock, but it
nonetheless does seem to proceed with some lawfulness. There are obviously too many
unknowns to attempt to project the model as far as 2016. Even projecting that far runs the
risk of such variable intervention, particularly given the presence of various 'spirits' which
'haunt' the process. The projections offered assume a state of relative equilibrium which is
a tenuous assumption at best. Additional specification of the model is undoubtedly in
order, but that is beyond the scope of the present consideration. The clock also ignores the
differentiation which occurs among different candidates even of the same party. On the
other hand, such differences may amount to only matters of degree, even in such cases as
the distinctions among, for instance, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Dole
(or for that matter, Stevenson, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter,
Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton). On that, it may amount to a rather 'traditional' view of
the electorate(Converse 1964, Asher 1987), and that is something which this author is not
anxious to accede to. It is also undoubtedly a much too deterministic perspective of a
fundamentally dynamic phenomenon. Without making too much of this clock, it does
present an interesting suggestion on the analysis it has stemmed from, even if this
examination is, at least with regard to allegory and metaphor, full of it.
(Please refer back to the article "Pollstergeist" in the Summer 1997 Volume I Number I issue of
the e Journal of Political Science for a substantive treatment of much relevant to this analysis).
Go to PollstergeistContinueReturn to Beginning of Fall 1997 IssueReturn to Beginning
