¹ Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1942), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

² See, for example, Key, V. O. Jr., American State Politics: An Introduction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956)Google Scholar.

³ Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 274Google Scholar.

⁴ Ibid., p. 273.

⁵ See, for example, Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald and Miller, Warren E., The Voter Decides (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1954)Google Scholar; and Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960)Google Scholar.

⁶ See Ranney, Austin, The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁷ Project 175.

⁸ The principal component analysis utilized the Pearson r correlation matrix of the item responses 1–5. The varimax orthogonal rotation employed, as a minimum criterion for rotation, an eigenvalue ≥ 1.0. “Don't know” responses were recoded as “agree-disagree” for use in the component analysis reported. A separate component analysis was carried out using a correlation for which the “don't knows” were treated as missing data. The results of the two separate component analyses were essentially the same. For description of the procedures used see: “Program Image,” University of Wisconsin Computing Center, August 13, 1964; and Harris, Chester W., “Some Rao-Guttman Relationships,” Psychometrika, 27 (09, 1962), 247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ For a discussion of the main features of the Wisconsin party scene, see Epstein, Leon D., Politics in Wisconsin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Somewhat similar data exist for the national public from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center's 1964 election survey. The question asked nationally was: “Would you be against or in favor of allowing people when they figure their income tax, to deduct the money they give to parties and candidates in the same way that money given to charities can be deducted?” Taking into account the disparities in question and option format, we might compare the national results with the Wisconsin data. In the United States as a whole 26% were in favor of this proposal in comparison with 19% in Wisconsin. 55% were against the proposal nationally whereas 68% were opposed in Wisconsin. Those who had mixed feelings, did not know or whose opinion was not ascertained constituted about 20% nationally and 13% in Wisconsin. Thus, if this one item is an indication, Wisconsin may be lower than the nation as a whole in party system support of this kind. See the Codebook of the 1964 Election Study, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Study 473, September-November, 1964, Post Election Study, Deck 11, Question 34, page 27. For more general discussion of this kind of proposal which could strengthen the position of the parties, see various publications of Herbert E. Alexander, Citizens' Research Foundation, Princeton, N.J. In particular, see Tax Incentives for Political Contributions?, Study Number 3, March, 1961. Also see Financing Presidential Campaigns, Report of the President's Commission on Campaign Costs (Washington D.C., 04, 1962)Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Easton, op. cit., pp. 256–259. See also, for discussion of related concepts: Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Wilmoore, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1956) pp. 152–153Google Scholar; Parsons, Talcott, “‘Voting’ and the Equilibrium of the American Political System” in Burdick, Eugene and Brodbeck, Arthur J. (eds.), American Voting Behavior (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959), pp. 80–120Google Scholar; Lipset, Seymour Martin, Political Man (New York: Doubleday, 1960)Google Scholar, Chapter III; Gabriel, Almond, introduction to Almond, Gabriel and Coleman, James S., (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Lowi, Theodore, “Toward Functionalism in Political Science: The Case of Innovation in Party Systems,” this Review, 57 (09, 1963), 570–583Google Scholar; and Sartori, Giovanni, Democratic Theory (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 84Google Scholar.

¹² Sorauf, Frank J., “Extra-Legal Political Parties in Wisconsin,” this Review, 58 (09, 1954), 692–704Google Scholar.

¹³ Op. cit., p. 502, emphasis in the original.

¹⁴ Mitchell, William C., “The Ambivalent Social Status of the American Politician,” The Western Political Quarterly, 12 (09, 1959), 683–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Of course, part of the reason why parents would not wish their progeny to pursue a political career is that they may have picked out some other career for them.

¹⁵ Op. cit., p. 698.

¹⁶ In another part of the survey reported here, the respondents were asked, “While you were growing up, did your father consider himself a Republican, a Democrat, a Progressive, or what?” Only two percent chose Progressive.

¹⁷ Were these feelings more intense, they might provide the occasion for considerable cognitive dissonance. As can be readily seen from the marginals, however, a calculation of the Key intensity ratio would result in a rather low value for all of these items. This is not an area of great public feeling. See Key, V. O. Jr., Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1961), pp. 208–218Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Component scores were computed using a program written by Keith Billingsley, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin. The formula used is X = B′R⁻¹S⁻¹(P–P̄) where X is the component scores matrix, B′ is the transpose of the rotated factor matrix, R⁻¹ is the inverse of the correlation matrix and S⁻¹(P – P̄) is the matrix of standardized observed scores with mean = 0 and variance = 1. See Kaiser, Henry F., “Formulas for Component Scores,” Psychometrika, 27 (03, 1962), pp. 83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ The procedure used is described in “BMD02R, Stepwise Regression” in Dixon, W. J. (ed.), BMD Biomedical Computer Programs, Health Sciences Computing Facility, Department of Preventive Medicine and School of Health, School of Medicine, U.C.L.A., Revised Edition, 09 1, 1965, pp. 233–257Google Scholar. It should be noted that several of these measures are ordinal in nature, in particular party identification, partisan activism, ideological self-identification, sex, and size of place. The use of interval statistics was thought desirable for reasons of comparability and power even though the assumptions of these statistics are not fully met by several of the variables used.

²⁰ See, for example, the references in Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965)Google Scholar. See also Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stouffer, Samuel H., Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1955)Google Scholar.

²¹ See, for example, The American Voter.

²² Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962), page 74Google Scholar.

²³ For explorations of related interest, but involving the public view of other political institutions, see: Hamilton, Herbert, The U.N. and the Public: A Multidimensional Analysis of the Meanings of a Social Institution, (Mimeograph) Urbana, Illinois: The University of Illinois Institute of Communications Research, (no date)Google Scholar; Janowitz, Morris, Wright, Deil and Delany, William, Public Administration and the Public's Perspectives Toward Government in a Metropolitan Community (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Institute of Public Administration, 1958)Google Scholar, and Stokes, Donald E., “Popular Evaluations of Government: An Empirical Assessment” in Cleveland, Harlan and Lasswell, Harold D. (eds.) Ethics and Bigness (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), pp. 61–72Google Scholar. For a discussion of the image of a political institution held by an emergent public, see: Easton, David and Dennis, Jack, “The Child's Image of Government,” in Sigel, Roberta (ed.), Political Socialization: Its Role in the Political Process, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 361 (09, 1965), pp. 40–57Google Scholar.

²⁴ See, for example, Kornhauser, William, The Politics of Mass Society (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959)Google Scholar.

²⁵ American State Politics, page 130.