Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION JUST HELD APPEARS to have been a momentous event. It was the greatest repudiation of an incumbent president and party in America since that of Hoover and the Republicans in 1931. Predicted by no one — by neither political scientist, pollster nor politician — this was as much a surprise to joyful Republicans as to luckless Democrats. The voters had not discussed the matter much, except in deprecatory terms borrowed from the media, and on the morning after they too looked around among themselves with wonder and satisfaction.
It could hardly be believed, as Carter's pollster asserted, that everyone turned to Reagan on the last day when the hostages held in Iran failed to appear. Something so considerable must have been meditated, or at least prepared; and this misfortune for Carter does not explain why the Democratic Senators, who were not involved with Iran, were voted out. Perhaps the large number of ‘undecideds’ were Reagan voters, too embarrassed to confess their decision to callers they suspected were unsympathetic. Or perhaps — a wishful fantasy of mine — the voters deliberately did not disclose their intention to the pollsters since they knew that sovereignty stays alive only with an occasional surprise. The voters may have sensed that they can be exploited if they can be predicted.
1 See Rose, Richard, ed., Electoral Participation, A Comparative Analysis, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1980 Google Scholar.
2 See especially Ranney, Austin, ‘The Political Parties: Reform and Decline’ and Jeane J. Kirkpátrick, ‘Changing Patterns of Electoral Competition’, in King, Anthony, ed., The New American Political System, Washington, D. C., American Enterprise Institute, 1978; pp. 213–248, 249–286 Google Scholar.
3 The Federalist No. 68.
4 Ceaser, James W., Presidential Selection: Theory and Development, Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press, 1979, ch. 3 Google Scholar.
5 Heclo, Hugh, ‘Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment’, in King, Anthony, ed., Op. cit., pp. 87–124 Google Scholar.
6 Lincoln, Abraham, ‘On the Perpetuation of our Political Institutions’, 27 01 1838 Google Scholar.
