You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Assessing the Representativeness of Electorates in Presidential Primaries
John G. Geer
American Journal of Political Science
Vol. 32, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 929-945
Published by: Midwest Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111195
Page Count: 17
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Primary elections, Political parties, Electorate, Voting, Political candidates, Identifiers, Political campaigns, Voter turnout, Political partisanship, Presidential elections
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
One of the widely held beliefs of students of American politics is that electorates in presidential primaries are unrepresentative of the party following. Specifically, scholars believe that voters in primaries are better paid, better educated, and more ideologically extreme than the party following. This paper challenges this belief. My results show that the party following, not voters in primaries, are better educated, better paid, and more ideologically extreme. This finding emerges quite clearly if one thinks of the "party following" not simply as people who identify with the party but rather as people who are potential supporters of the party in general elections. While electorates in primaries are still "unrepresentative" of the rank and file, the biases are small enough to have few consequences when selecting candidates. These results suggest that complaints about presidential primaries being unresponsive to the wishes of the rank and file may be misplaced, implying perhaps that we should be less critical of them.
American Journal of Political Science © 1988 Midwest Political Science Association