Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots:...
Transcript of Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots:...
![Page 1: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CountingWomen’sBallots:FemaleVotersafterSuffrageintheU.S.
ChristinaWolbrechtAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScience
UniversityofNotreDameNotreDame,[email protected]
PaperpreparedforpresentationattheEuropeanConferenceonPoliticsandGender,heldinUppsala,Sweden,June11‐13,2015.Thispaperreportsonworkco‐authoredwithJ.KevinCorder(WesternMichiganUniversity,USA)andsettoappearinCountingWomen’sBallots:FemaleVotersfromSuffrageThroughtheNewDeal,undercontractwithCambridgeUniversityPress.WegratefullyacknowledgedthesupportoftheFacultyResearchProgramattheUniversityofNotreDame,theResearchDevelopmentAwardProgramatWesternMichiganUniversity,andtheNationalScienceFoundation(SES‐9905843and9905307).SomeofthedataemployedweremadeavailablebytheInter‐universityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR);theConsortiumbearsnoresponsibilityfortheanalysesorinterpretationspresentedhere.Theauthorsaresolelyresponsibleforthecontentofthispaper.Thisconferencepapershouldnotbecitedwithoutpermission.
![Page 2: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
CountingWomen’sBallots:FemaleVotersafterSuffrageintheU.S.
OnAugust18,1920,Tennesseebecamethethirty‐sixthstateintheuniontoratifythe19thAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.Afteramorethan70yearbattle,womenthroughouttheU.S.securedtherighttovote.ThenationalenfranchisementofwomenrepresentedthelargestexpansionoftheelectorateinAmericanhistory,nearlydoublingthesizeofthevotingagepopulation.1Millionsofcitizenswhohadnevercastaballotbecameeligibletodoso.
Justfourpresidentialelectionslater,theU.S.wouldexperienceoneofthemost
dramaticelectoraltransformationsinitshistory.RepublicanshadbeenascendantsincetheendoftheCivilWar,butthecrisisoftheGreatDepression—andtheparties’divergentresponsestoit—transformedpartisanalignmentsintheU.S.andusheredinaneraofDemocraticdominanceformuchofthe20thcentury.The“NewDealrealignment”ofthe1930sestablishedanewDemocraticcoalitionwhichwouldpersistfordecades.
ThecausesandconsequencesNewDealrealignmenthavereceivedconsiderable
attention.Scholarshavehadfarlesstosayaboutthecontributionofwomentothisprocess.Yetwehavereasontoexpectwomenmayhaveplayedakeyroleintheenormousvotermobilizationduringthisperiod.AlargenumberofstillelectorallyinactivewomenwereamongthosemostavailableformobilizationintotheDemocraticpartyinthe1930s.Atthesametime,womenwhohadvotedinthe1920swere—asaresultoftheirrelativelyfeweropportunitiestohavereinforcedtheirpartisanshipbycastingballots—amongthosemostavailableforconversionfromonepartisanallegiancetotheother.Thispaperasks:Didwomenandmenrealignviathesameordifferentprocesses?WhatwasthecontributionofwomentoNewDealrealignment?
Previousscholarshasbeenhinderedintheconclusionstheycouldreachregarding
theelectoralbehaviorofthefirstfemalevotersbecausewepossessverylimitedusefuldataonhowwomenvotedaftersuffrage.Withrareexceptions,officialrecordsreportonlythetotalnumberofvotescastoverallandforeachcandidate.Whetherwomencastballots,forwhichcandidates,andwithwhatconsequencescannotbedirectlydeterminedfromofficialrecordsalone.Reliablepublicopinionpolls—themodernsolutiontothisproblem—arevirtuallynon‐existentduringthisperiod.Earlyresearchersattemptedtodrawconclusionsfromtheavailableaggregateelectionandcensusrecords,butsinceRobinson(1950)socialscientistshaveunderstoodthedangersofwhatisknownastheecologicalfallacy(seebelow)andgenerallyshiedawayfromsuchanalysis.
1Wesay“nearly”becauseelevenstatesallowedwomentovoteinthe1916presidentialelection.Ontheotherhand,restrictiveinterpretationsofregistrationrules(ratificationoccurredafterregistrationdeadlinesinanumberofstates)systematicallydeniedwomenaccesstotheballotinArkansas,Georgia,Mississippi,andSouthCarolinain1920,delayingtheirparticipationinpresidentialelectionsuntil1924(Gosnell1930).Togetherwithblackmen,manyblackwomencontinuedtoexperiencesystematicexclusionfromthefranchiseuntilthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.Forthatreason,weassumethatourconclusionsaboutthevotingbehavioroffemalevoterslargelydescribewhitefemalevoters.
![Page 3: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
Thispaperreportsonresultsfromaprojectwhichseekstoovercomethesedataandmethodologicalchallengesandindoingso,deepenandimproveourunderstandingofanimportantperiodinAmericanelectoralhistoryandAmericanpoliticaldevelopment.Combininguniquehistoricelectiondataandrecentmethodologicalinnovations,weareabletoestimatetheturnoutandvotechoiceofnewfemalevotersinthefivepresidentialelectionsfollowingwomen’snationalenfranchisement(1920‐1936)foralargerandmorediversesetofplaces—tenAmericanstates—thanhaspreviouslybeenpossible.Inthispaper,weemploytheestimatesforthepresidentialelectionsof1932and1936toexaminethecontributionsofwomentotheprocessofNewDealrealignment.
ExpectationsforWomenandNewDealRealignment
Theelectoralrealignmentthatoccurredbetween1928and1936hasbeenthe
subjectofaremarkablevolumeofscholarlywork.AquestionofparticularinterestistheextenttowhichtheshiftfromRepublicantoDemocraticdominancewascharacterizedbythemobilizationofpreviouslyinactivecitizensortheconversionofthosealreadyactive.TheconversionstorypositsthatwidespreaddissatisfactionwiththeRepublicanresponsetotheeconomiccrisispersuadedpreviousRepublicanvoterstosupporttheDemocraticnominee,FranklinD.Roosevelt(FDR),in1932,andthenreinforcethatpreferencebyvotingforFDRinsubsequentelections,resultinginalong‐termshiftfromRepublicantoDemocraticloyalty(Brown1988).ThoseparticularlyhardhitbytheDepression—e.g.,farmersandurbanindustrialworkers—werebelievedthemostlikelycandidatesforconversion(Gourevitch1984;Sundquist1973).
Others,however,haveemphasizedtheconsiderableevidenceofindividual‐level
stabilityofpartisanattachment,afindingdatingfromtheinfluentialearlyvotestudies(Berelson,Lazarsfeld,andMcPhee1954;Campbelletal.1960,1966;Lazarsfeld,Berelson,andGaudet1948)andapersistent,ifcontested,thesistoday(e.g.,Green,Palmquist,andSchickler2002).Ifpartisanshipisan“unmovedmover”(Johnston2006),thenDemocraticgainslikelycamelessfromparty‐switchingbyRepublicans,andmorefromthemobilizationofneworpreviouslyinactivecitizens,suchasthemassivenumbersofnewimmigrantsenteringtheU.S.intheprecedingdecades,respondingtotheappealoftheDemocraticparty(seeSalisburyandMacKuen1981).
Amidstdebatesovertheoryandmethod,scholarshavefoundsupportforboth
mobilization(Andersen1979;Campbelletal.1960;Campbell1985;Prindle1979;Wanat1979)andconversion(Burnham1970;EriksonandTedin1981;HawleyandSagarazu2012;LaddandHadley1975;Sundquist1983)asthemechanismsforNewDealrealignment.Differentelections,groups,andplacesmayhavebeencharacterizedbydifferentkindsofprocesses(e.g.,Andersen2014,Brown1988,Gamm1989;Nardulli1995).
Wehavereasontoexpectthatwomenwerebothmorelikelytoconvertfrom
previousRepublicansupportandmorelikelytobemobilizedintotheemergingDemocraticmajorityduringtheNewDealelections.Sincewomenhadbeenlesslikelythanmentoturnouttovoteintheelectionsofthe1920s,morewomenthanmenwereavailablefor
![Page 4: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
mobilization—thatis,thereweremorewomenwhowerenotalreadymembersoftheactiveelectorate.Indeed,intermsofsheernumbers,therewerelikelymorewomenavailableformobilizationthananyotherdemographicgroup.Atthesametime,womenwhohadvotedduringthe1920smayhavebeenmorelikelytoconvertsincetheirrelativelyshortexperienceatthepollsprovidedlessopportunitytoreinforcepartisanpreferences.Inotherwords,womenboastedlowerlevelsof“politicalimmunization”(McPheeandFerguson1962),theresistancetodisturbanceaccumulatedfromrepetitionandreiteration.
Yet,manyofthemostprominentrealignmentandpartisanshipscholarshavebeen
silentonthepotentialcontributionsoffemalevoters.Inhisinfluentialbook,CriticalElectionsandtheMainspringsofAmericanPolitics,Burnham(1970)notesthelikelydifferentialmobilizationofnativeandimmigrantwomenpriorto1928butdoesnotimplicatethemintherealignmentthatfollowed.Likewise,inSundquist’s(1983)importantstatementonpartyrealignment,DynamicsofthePartySystem,thechapteronNewDealrealignmentdoesnotmentionwomen.Kleppner(1982,89)identifies“immigrant‐stockvoters,theyoung,thosetowardthebottomoftheeconomicladder,theunemployed,reliefers,andcitizenswhohadchosentoabstaininthe1920s”asthoseresponsibleforincreasedturnoutduringtheNewDealperiod;whilemanywomenfellintothelastcategory,hedoesnotdiscusswomenspecificallywithregardstotheNewDeal.Similarly,Gosnell(1942,23),describingthesix‐foldincreaseinDemocraticvotersbetween1928and1936inPennsylvania,concludesthattheDemocratsattracted“ahugearmyofnewvoters—theyoungvotersandthosewhohadformerlybeennon‐votersthroughindifference.”Again,wemightexpectmanywomentofallintothatsecondcamp,buttheygounmentioned.Finally,andperhapsmostimportantlyintermsofestablishingtheconventionalwisdom,intheirclassicbook,TheAmericanVoter,Campbellandhiscolleagues(1960,153)implicate“theyouth,theeconomicallyunderprivileged,andtheminoritygroups,”butnotwomen,assourcesofthenewDemocraticmajority.
Afewscholarshaveatleastallowedforthepossibilityofaroleforfemalevotersin
theNewDealelections.DrawingexplicitlyonMcPheeandFerguson’s(1962)conceptofpoliticalimmunization,Andersen(1979)identifiestheenfranchisementofwomenasacentralcontributortothelargenumberofnon‐immunizedvotersinthe1920swhoweresubsequentlyavailableforDemocraticconversionandmobilizationduringtheNewDealperiod.Inotherwork,Burnham(1974,1015)pointstotheheavymobilizationofwomen,especially“ethnicwomen,”duringthe“1928‐1936realignmentsequence.”UsingdatafromBostonwards,Gamm(1989)findsthatwomenweremobilizedasDemocratslaterthanmen;increasesinDemocraticsupportbefore1934werearesultofsupportfrommen,butafterthattime,women’sgainssurpassedthoseofmen.
ThegeneralinattentiontowomenasafactorinNewDealrealignmentcanbe
attributedtoatleasttwofactors.First,theconventionalwisdomthatfemalevotershadfailedtomaterializeasauniquevotingblocortodiffermuchfrommenintheirpoliticalpreferenceshadbeenlargelyacceptedasconventionalwisdombythetimeKey(1955)hadcalledattentiontocriticalelectionsandtheNewDealperiodinparticularhadbecomethe
![Page 5: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
subjectofwidespreadscholarlyinterest.Asaresult,fewscholarslikelyviewedwomenaspotentialcontributorstotheprocessofelectoralchangeinthe1930s.
Second,thedearthofattentiontowomeninthepreviousliteratureonNewDeal
realignmenthighlightsthemethodologicalchallengestostudyinggenderdifferencesinelectoralbehaviorpriortotheadventofsurveyresearch.MuchoftheliteratureonNewDealrealignmentischaracterizedbymeticulousdataworkinwhichscholarscarefullyidentifiedcountiesandothergeopoliticaldivisionswithdemographicpopulationsthatallowedreasonable(inmostcases)inferencesabouttheturnoutandvotechoiceofparticulargroups(Andersen1979;Gamm1989;Key1955;Kleppner’s1982;Nardulli1995).Racial,ethnic,andimmigrantresidentialsegregationmakesisolatingsuchgroupsgeographicallyfarmoretenablethanidentifyingfemalevotersseparatefrommale.ThisempiricalchallengedoesnotjustifythefailuretosomuchasspeculateastothepossibledistinctivecontributionofwomentoNewDealrealignment,however.Rather,thislacunaeinthescholarlyliterature(withfew,importantexceptions)pointstoamoregeneralfailuretorecognizewomenashavingapotentiallyuniqueelectoralimpactduringthisperiod.
ResearchDesign
ThemethodologicalchallengeforthisresearchisdescribedbyOgburnandGoltra
(1919,413):“women’sballotsarenotdistinguishedfromthoseofmenbutaredepositedinthesameballotbox.”Invirtuallyallcases,ballotsarenotdistinguishedbythesexofthevoterwhocastthem,andthusofficialrecordscannottellushowwomenandmenvoted.Publicopinionandexitpolls,themodernsolutiontothisproblem,areunavailableorunreliableduringthisera.
Someearlyscholarscorrelatedavailableinformationaboutthegendercomposition
ofthepopulationandaggregateelectionreturnstomakeinferencesabouttheelectoralbehaviorofwomenandmen(e.g.,OgburnandGoltra1919;RiceandWilley1924).Thisprocessofinferringindividual‐levelrelationships(suchasbetweensexandturnout)fromaggregate‐leveldata(suchastheproportionofthepopulationthatisfemaleandtheproportionofthepopulationthatturnsouttovote)isknownasecologicalinference.However,Robinson(1950)explainshowthesecorrelationsarecharacterizedbywhathetermstheecologicalfallacy.Apositiverelationshipbetween,forexample,theproportionofthepopulationthatisAfrican‐Americanandtheproportionthatturnsouttovote,doesnotnecessarilymeanthatAfrican‐Americansaremorelikelytoturnoutthanothercitizens.Indeed,suchapositivecorrelationwasoftenfoundincountiesintheAmericanSouthinthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury;ratherthanindicatinghighAfrican‐Americanturnout,thatcorrelationwasdrivenbythepropensityofwhitestoturnoutathigherrateswheretheAfrican‐Americanpopulationwaslarger(Key1949).
Ecologicalinferencetodeterminegenderdifferencesinbehaviorisparticularly
challenging.Eveninsmallgeographicunits,wedonotobserveextremelyhighconcentrationsofwomenormen.Thisdistinguishesourapplicationfromthosethatfocusonotherpolitically‐relevantdivisions,suchasrace,class,orimmigration,whereresidentialsegregationresultsinhighconcentrationsofvariousgroupsinparticulargeographicareas
![Page 6: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
(often,ofcourse,notbychoice),permittingthedirect(orneardirect)observationofbehaviorforthatgroupinsomeespeciallyinformativegeographicunits.Thatis,observationswithextremelylopsidedconcentrationsof,e.g.,whitecitizens,produceverynarrowboundsofthepossibleelectoralbehaviorofwhites.If90%ofthepopulationinageographicunitiswhite,thelogicallypossibleturnoutandvotechoiceratesofwhitecitizensinthatunitmustbeverysimilartooverallturnoutandvotechoiceinthatunit.Givenarelativelylimitedrangeforthevariationinpercentagefemaleandgiventhetypicalconcentrationofthatpercentagearound50percent,thelogicallypossiblecombinationsofmaleandfemaleturnoutrangeacrossaverywideinterval.
Recentresearch,however,haspioneerednew,morereliableapproachesto
ecologicalinference(seeespeciallyKing1997).WeemployanapproachdescribedinWakefield(2005)whichbuildsonalargebodyofrelatedworkinbiostatisticsandepidemiology(seeRichardsonandMonfort2000)todevelopacomputationallymanageableBayesianstrategyfor2x2tables.WeextendWakefield’sapproachintwoways.First,weapplyWakefield’sapproach—developedfor2x2tables—tothemorecomplex2x4problem,estimatingDemocraticvote,Republicanvote,otherpartyvote,andabstention(fourpossibleoutcomes)formenandwomen(twopopulationgroups).Second,weintroducetheuncontroversialassumptionthatmaleturnoutwillexceedfemaleturnoutineachgeographicunitduringthisperiod.Asweshowbelow,thisapproachpermitsustogeneratereliableestimatesoffemaleandmaleturnoutandvotechoiceintheseelections.(OurmethodandestimationstrategyaredescribedingreaterdetailinCorderandWolbrechtN.d.).
Wethenemploythismethodologytoestimatetheturnoutandvotechoiceof
womenandmeninasampleofAmericanstates.Dataconstraintslimitedustoasample,ratherthanthefullpopulation.Weconstructedoursampleofstateswithtwoobjectives:(1)toobtainasmanyobservationsaspossibleineachstate(preferablyinexcessof100),and(2)toproduceasmuchcross‐statevariationinpolitically‐relevantvariablesaspossible.Dependingonthedataavailable,weobservepopulationcharacteristicsandelectoraloutcomesforvarioussub‐stategeographicunits,includingcounties,wardsofmajorcities,andMinorCivilDivisions(MCDs),thetermtheU.S.Censususestodescribethepoliticalsub‐unitsofcounties(usuallytownshipsandvillages).County‐leveldataweremadeavailablebytheInter‐universityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR1992,1992;seeCorderandWolbrechtN.d.forfurtherinformationonthedata).Electionreturnsandcensus(population)dataformultipleobservationsineachstateandelectionproducessufficientvariationtopermitsuccessfulestimation.Variationacrossstatesinpolitically‐relevantfactorspermitsustoexamineanumberofhypothesesregardingcontextualeffects.OurresultingsampleoftenstatesisdescribedinTable1.
![Page 7: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
Table1Samplestatesandcharacteristics
DateofPresidential Electoral Restrictions Women’s CollegeVote Party onState Suffrage1 Region Share(1920) Competition2 Voting3 Connecticut 1920 Northeast 1.3 One‐partyRepublican HighIllinois 1913 Midwest 5.5 One‐partyRepublican MinimalIowa 1919 Midwest 2.5 One‐partyRepublican MinimalKansas 1912 Midwest 1.9 One‐partyRepublican MinimalKentucky 1920 Border 2.5 CompetitiveDemocratic MinimalMassachusetts 1920 Northeast 3.4 One‐partyRepublican HighMinnesota 1919 Midwest 2.3 One‐partyRepublican MinimalMissouri 1919 Midwest 3.4 CompetitiveRepublican MinimalOklahoma 1918 Border 1.9 One‐partyDemocratic MinimalVirginia 1920 SolidSouth 2.3 One‐partyDemocratic High1.Source:Keyssar(2000).2.Source:Burnham(1981)for1914‐30.Seetextforcategorydefinitions.3.Source:Blakey(1928),Key(1949),andKeyssar(2000).
Ourtenstatesamplepermitsustoobservethebehaviorandimpactoffemalevotersoverafarbroaderandmorediverserangeoftimeandplacethanpreviousresearch.However,wedonotclaimthatthesampleisrepresentativeofthebroaderU.S.electorate.Oursamplewasconstrained,sometimessystematically,bythelackofelectionandcensusreturnsforasufficientnumberofsub‐stateobservationsinmanystates;suchdataareunavailablethroughthewestinthisperiod,forexample.Asaresult,oursampledoesnotfullyreflecteachregionofthecountryandbothdiffersfromandissimilartothepopulationasawholeonanumberofdimensions.(ForacomparisonofoursampleandthebroaderAmericanelectorate,seeCorderandWolbrechtN.d.).
WeemployMCMCsimulationtoproduceestimatesoffemaleandmaleturnoutfor
eachofoursamplestatesinthefivepresidentialelectionsbetween1920and1936(seeCorderandWolbrechtN.d.).Whileourestimatessatisfyanumberofdiagnostictests,thebestindicatoroftheaccuracyoftheestimator,inourview,istherecoveryoftheknown(true)Illinoisoutcomesin1916and1920.ThestateofIllinoisenfranchisedwomenforasubsetofofficesin1913,andthuswomenreceiveddifferentballotsthandidmeninthepresidentialelectionsof1916and1920(seeGoldstein1984).Thiswasnotunusualinstatesthatenfranchisedwomenpriortothe19thAmendment;whatwasunusualisthatIllinoisalsoreportedtheoutcomes—numbersofvotescastandvotechoice—separatelyformenandwomen.TheIllinoisdatathusprovideusauniqueandvaluableopportunitytovalidateourestimates.
Figure1reportstheactualandestimatedquantitiesforIllinoisin1916and1920.
Thetablerevealsboththepromiseoftheapproachandafewhazards.Despitethesignificantchallengesofecologicalinference,particularlyforsexdifferences,estimatesofturnoutandpartisanvoteshareareremarkablyclosetotheobservedreturns.Indeed,the
![Page 8: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
errororuncertaintyassociatedwiththeestimateiscomparabletothemarginoferrorinthesortoflargepublicopinionsurveythatformsthebasisformostcontemporaryelectionresearch(+/‐3%for1920Republicanvoteshare,forinstance).Withtheexceptionofturnout,eachoftheobservedquantitiesisinthe90%Bayesiancredibleinterval—therangeofuncertaintyassociatedwiththeestimatedparameters.2Inbothelections,estimatesofoverallturnoutareveryclosedtotheobserved,butbiasedslightlydownwardforfemaleturnoutandslightlyupwardformaleturnout.Thissmallbias,whileproblematic,doesnotpreventusfromreachinghighlyaccurateconclusionsaboutchangesinturnoutandvotechoiceacrossthetwoIllinoiselections.
Figure1
Observedandestimatedvotechoiceandturnout,Illinois,1916and1920
WomenandNewDealRealignment
Wenowturntowhatourestimatesofturnoutandvotechoicecantellusabouttheroleofwomeninthetransformativepresidentialelectionsof1932and1936.Mobilization 2The90%Bayesiancredibleintervalistherangeofestimatedvaluesin90%ofthesimulations.TheBayesianapproachpermitsustobefairlyspecificabouttheconfidencewehaveinparticularconclusionsthatwereach.Inthetextweclaimtobeconfidentofafindingofdifference(e.g.,femaleRepublicanvoteshareexceededmaleRepublicanvoteshare)if90percentormoreofthesimulationssupporttheconclusion.Wemaynoteadifferenceinwhichasmallerproportionofsimulationssupporttheconclusionsbutweacknowledgelessconfidenceinsuchresults.ThechoiceofathresholdofthistypeintheBayesiancontextisnotoriouslydifficult(seeRafterty1996),sowedisclosespecificprobabilitiesassociatedwithimportantclaims.
![Page 9: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
oftheelectoratein1932and1936isexceptional,particularlygiventhelong‐termtrendstowarddecliningelectoralparticipationattheturnofthecentury(seeBurnham1965).Acrossoursampleasawhole,men’sturnoutaverages75%in1932and78%in1936.Women’sturnoutaverages48%in1932(a27pointturnoutgendergap)andby1936,morethanhalfofthewomeninoursamplestates(54%)turnouttovote,a24pointturnoutgendergap.Thestate‐levelestimates,reportedinFigure2,3highlightthisremarkablemobilization.Inourtensamplestates,morethan70%ofthemalevotingagepopulationturnsouttovoteineverystatesaveone(Virginia)in1932and1936.Femaleturnoutisalsohigh:above50%inhalfofthestatesinoursamplein1932andin6of10statesin1936.Indeed,weestimatefemaleturnouttoexceed60%infourMidwesternstatesin1936,alevelofmobilizationonpartwithhighturnoutelectionsintheU.S.today.
Figure2
Turnoutofwomenandmen,1932and1936
1932
3Becauseregionandpartycontextarecentraltoouranalyseselsewhere,weorganizestatesinthefiguresbythosecharacteristics:Westartwithourone‐partyDemocraticSouthernstate(Virginia)onthefarleft,thenreportonourtwoBorderstates,withtheone‐partyDemocraticstate(Oklahoma)followedbythecompetitive(Democratic‐leaning)state(Kentucky).WethenmoveontoourMidwesternstates,startingwiththeonecompetitive(Republican‐leaning)state(Missouri)andthenthefourone‐partyRepublicanstates(Kansas,Iowa,Minnesota,andIllinois).Finally,tothefarrightwepresentourtwoone‐partyRepublicanstatesintheNortheast(ConnecticutandMassachusetts).Bothregionandourpartycontextmeasureareindicated,alongwithstatelabel,onthex‐axis.
![Page 10: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
1936
Figure3showsthat,acrossoursampleasawhole,Democratswerehugely
successfulin1932and1936—particularlyinlightofRepublicandominanceinthe1920s.Intheelectionsleadingupto1932,weobservedapersistentRepublicanadvantageamongwomeninone‐partyRepublicanstatesintheMidwest.ThisdifferenceislargelyresponsibleforthesmallRepublicanadvantageamongwomeninoursampleasawholeinthefirstthreepresidentialelections,1920through1928.Theelectoraldisruptionsof1932and1936erodethisadvantage—andperhapsevenreverseitslightly—withtheendresultthatwomen’sandmen’ssupportforDemocraticnomineesettlesataboutthesamelevelby1936.Specifically,Democraticsupportinboth1932and1936averages57%amongmencomparedto60%amongwomeninourtensamplestates.
![Page 11: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
Figure3Democraticvoteshareofwomenandmen,1932and1936
1932
1936
![Page 12: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
Thefiguressofarhavegivenusageneralsenseoftheturnoutandvotechoiceofwomenandmenintheseelections.WhatissignificantabouttheseelectionsisthedramaticshiftfromaconsiderableRepublicanadvantageamongtheelectorateinelectionspriortothe1930stoaDemocraticadvantagebeginningin1932.Howdidthatcomeabout,andwhatroledidwomenplay?Wecanbestanswerthatquestionwithourestimatesbyexaminingthenumberofballotsgainedandlostbetweenelections.Aswehavediscussed,thecontributionsofmobilizationandconversiontoNewDealrealignmenthavebeenofkeeninteresttoscholars.Theprocessesappeartovaryacrossthesetwoelections—withlittleturnoutchangeandlargeDemocraticswings(conversion)in1932,andsignificantnewmobilizationandlittlechangeinpartisandistribution(mobilization)in1936—sowediscusstheoverallandpartisanmobilizationpatternsinthe1932and1936electionsinsequence.
TheElectionof1932
Figure4summarizesthetotalnumberoffemaleandmalevotersaddedtothe
electoratein1932,providinganindicationofthesizeofthemobilizationofmenandwomen.WiththeexceptionofVirginia,thesizeoftheactiveelectorateexpandedineverystate,althoughsometimesonlyveryslightly,over1928.Giventheextraordinarylevelofnewvotermobilizationin1928,bothmaintenanceandespeciallyexpansionofthesizeoftheactiveelectorateshouldbeconsideredanimpressivefeat.InahandfulofstatesintheMidwest(i.e.,Missouri,Kansas,andIllinois),weestimatethatnearlytwiceasmanynewfemalevotersareaddedtotherollsasmalevotersin1932,althoughonlyinIllinoisaremorethan90%ofthesimulationsconsistentwiththeconclusionthatfemalemobilizationoutpacedmalemobilizationin1932.Intheotherstates,thenumberofnewvotersiseithersimilarortherearejustslightlymorenewfemalevoters;wecanonlyconcludewithconfidencethatthesestatesaddedsimilarnumbersofnewmaleandfemalevoters.MassachusettsandConnecticut,bothofwhichexperiencedadramaticexpansionoftheelectoratein1928,standoutasstateswithalmostnonewvotersin1932;hereagain,thesimulationssuggestthisconclusionholdsforbothmaleandfemalevoters.Thus,withtheexceptionofIllinois,weestimatethatroughlyequalnumbersofnewmenandwomenenteredtheelectoratein1932.
![Page 13: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
Figure4Changeinnumberofvotescastbywomenandmen,1928to1932
DemocratsovercameaconsiderableRepublicanadvantagetobecomethemajority
partyin1932.Figure5displaysthechangeinthenumberofvotescastfortheDemocraticpresidentialnomineebetween1928and1932.OutsideoftheNortheast,thenumberofDemocraticvotesgainedisextraordinaryineverysamplestate.Innearlyallofthestates,menaccountforalargernumberofnewDemocraticvotersthandowomenbutinmostcases,thedifferencesaresmall.Illinoisistheexception:Nearly80%ofthesimulationsindicatethatwomenaccountedformorenewDemocraticvotersthandidmeninIllinoisin1932despitethefactthat,asineverystate,women’sturnoutlaggedthatofmen.Therearetwoothersstatesinwhichgenderdifferencesdoappear,bothintheSouthern/Borderregion:InOklahomaandVirginiamorethan90%ofthesimulationsareconsistentwiththeconclusionthatDemocratsgainedmorenewmalethanfemalevoters.ThesefindingsareconsistentwithevidencethatNewDealrealignmentunfoldedinuniquelylocalways,andthattheexperienceandcontributionsofwomenwereasmuchafunctionoftheirlocalcontextasthefactoftheirgender.
![Page 14: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
Figure5ChangeinnumberofDemocraticvotescastbywomenandmen,1928to1932
Notsurprisingly,thedeclineinRepublicanballotsineachstate—summarizedinFigure6—tellsthesamestory.ThedeclineinthelevelofsupportfortheRepublicancandidatewasroughlysimilaramongmenandwomeninmostsamplestates.InOklahomaandVirginia(whereDemocratsgainedmorementhanwomen),Republicanlossesamongmenweremuchlargerthanlossesamongwomen,aconclusionsupportedbymorethan90%ofthesimulations.Morethan70%ofthesimulationssupportthesameconclusioninKansasandMinnesota.Wethusarebeginningtoseesomeevidenceconsistentwithdifferingpatternsofmobilization(women)andconversion(men)asexplanationsforpartisanchangeamongmenandwomenin1932.
![Page 15: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
Figure6ChangeinnumberofRepublicanvotescastbywomenandmen,1928to1932
WerewomenandmenmobilizedasorconvertedtoDemocratsinthesamewayin
moststatesorbydistinctpaths?Ourestimatesdonotpermitustosaywithcertaintyhownewvoterscasttheirballots,orwhethervoterslostbyRepublicansin1932stayedhomeorcasttheirballotforDemocrats.Wecan,however,makereasonableinferences(withappropriatecaution)fromthepatternsobserved.Overall,ourgeneralconclusionisclear:WiththeexceptionoftheNortheasternstatesandIllinois,turnoutgainsaremodestornon‐existentin1932whiletheshareofvoteswonbyDemocratsincreasesdramatically,suggestingasignificantportionofthosenewDemocraticvoteslikelycamefromvoterswhocasttheirballotsfortheRepublicancandidatein1928;inotherwords,weconclude,asothershave,thatconversionwaslikelythedominantmechanismoverallin1932(cf.,Brown1988;HawleyandSagarzazu2012).
Theminimumnumberofconvertsrequiredtogeneratetheobservedlevelof
Democraticvotes4ineachstatein1932issummarizedinFigure7.ThenumberreportedinthefigureisthenumberofnewmaleorfemaleDemocraticvotersminusthenumberofnewmaleorfemalevoters.Thedifferencebetweenthesenumbersistheminimumnumberofconverts(previousRepublicanvoters)whomusthaveswitchedpartisanvotechoicetoaccountforobservedsupportfortheDemocraticcandidatein1932.SincethenumberofadditionalvotesforDemocratsissolargerelativetothenumberofnewvotersinevery
4ThefiguresummarizesdefectionsfromtheRepublicanPartyin1932,whichcouldresultinincreasingsupportfortheDemocraticcandidateorathirdpartycandidate.Thirdpartysupportisfairlylowinthesamplestatesin1932,about2.5%,sotheoverwhelmingnumberofRepublicanconvertssupportedtheDemocraticcandidate.
![Page 16: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
state,itisextremelylikelythatthereweremanyconvertsfromtheRepublicantotheDemocraticparty.(ThisisanestimatebasedontheassumptionthatvirtuallyallnewvoterswereDemocraticsupporters.IfsomenewvoterssupportedtheRepublicans,thenumberofrequiredconvertswouldbehigher.IfsomeestablishedvotersshiftedfromtheDemocratstoorthirdpartiestotheRepublicanparty,thenumberofrequiredconvertsfrom1928Republicanswouldbehigher.Ontheotherhand,ifmanyRepublicanvotersfrom1928stayedhomeandthesevoterswerereplacedwithnewDemocraticvoters,thentheconversionnumberswouldbelower).Whiledifferencesinmanystatesaresmall,inmoststatesthereweremoremaleconverts(1928RepublicanvoterswhocastDemocraticorthird‐partyballotsin1932)thantherewerefemale.
Figure7
Minimum*numberofRepublicanconverts,1928to1932
*AssumesnonewvotersarecapturedbytheRepublicans
Overall,giventheestimatednumberofnewfemaleandmalevotersin1932inoursample(411,000newwomenand290,000newmen),andacceptingthecrudeassumptionthatnonewvotersareRepublicans,weestimatethat,acrossourtensamplestates,about656,000womenwhovotedRepublicanin1928votedforFDRin1932,andapproximately828,000menwhohadvotedRepublicanin1928castDemocraticballotsfouryearslater.Asaresult,conversionaccountsforabout62%ofthe1.06millionvotesgainedbyDemocratsamongwomenin1932inthesamplestates,andperhaps75%ofthe1.11millionvotesgainedbyDemocratsamongmen.
![Page 17: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
Thus,conversiongenerallyappearstoaccountformore,andmobilizationrelativelyless,ofthenewDemocraticvotescastbymenthanbywomen.Thisisnotparticularlysurprising;thelargernumberofmenalreadyvotingin1928impliesthatmoremenwereavailableforconversionand,lessso,mobilization.Whatmightbesurprisingisthattherelativelylargernumberofmaleconvertsoccursinspiteofthefactthatwomenaremorelikelytodefect.Thatis,womenwhovotedRepublicanin1928weremorelikelytocastDemocraticballots(defect)in1932thanweremenwhovotedRepublicanin1928.Theminimumnumberofconverts(fromabove)asapercentageoftheavailable1928Republicanelectorategivesasenseoftherateofdefection.Forexample,inMinnesota,weestimate89,000ofthe213,000womenwhocastRepublicanballotsin1928didnotdosoin1932,foradefectionrateof41%amongwomen.Incontrast,weestimate108,000ofthe347,000menwhocastRepublicanballotsin1928didnotdosoin1932,producingamaledefectionrateof31%.ConsistentwiththeestimatesfromMinnesota,women’srateofdefectionexceedsmen’sineverystate.Insomestates,likeOklahomaandIllinois,thegenderdifferencesindefectionratesarequitesmall.Inotherstates,likeMinnesotaandKentucky,thedefectionrateforwomenwasclearlyhigher.Sinceeachofthenumbersinthecalculationisestimatedwithuncertainty,theconfidenceintervalsforthesequantitiesarewide.Summingacrossallofthesamplestates,about80%ofthesimulationsareconsistentwiththeconclusionthatfemaledefectionratesexceededmaledefectionratesinoursamplestates.Inonestate,Minnesota,over85%ofthesimulationsareconsistentwiththeconclusionthatthepercentageofRepublicandefectorswashigheramongwomenthanmen.Therearenostateswhereevenmorethan50%ofthesimulationsareconsistentwithahigherminimumdefectionrateamongmen.
![Page 18: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
Figure8Minimum*percentageof1928Republicanballotsconverted(defectionrate),1928
to1932
*AssumesnonewvotersarecapturedbytheRepublicans
Thus,whilein1932mobilizationwasresponsibleforabiggerportionofnewDemocraticballotscastbywomen,thanitwasfornewDemocraticballotscastbymen,thepercentageofwomenwhochangedtheirvotechoicefrom1928to1932(defection)waslikelylargerthanthesimilarpercentageamongmen.Onceagain,thisfindinghighlightshowourconclusionsareshapedbythedataandmeasuresweexamine,andparticularlytheinteractionofturnoutandvotechoice.WhilemoreoftheDemocraticgainsamongmenwereattributabletoconversionthanmobilization,manyfewerwomenvotedin1928.Asaresult,evenwithfewerconvertsin1932overall,thelikelihoodthata1928voterchangedhervotefromRepublicantoDemocraticin1932waslikelymarginallyhigheramongwomenthanmen.Substantively,wenotethatthegreaterlikelihoodthatwomenwoulddefectin1932isconsistentwithclaimsthatwomen’slesserelectoralexperiencewouldmeanweakerpartisanties(e.g.,Converse1969,1976).
TheElectionof1936
In1936,themobilizationofnewvotersisclearlymoreextensivethanin1932and
inmoststatestherearemorewomenaddedtotheelectoratethanmen.Overall,acrossourtensamplestates,868,000morewomenparticipatein1936thanin1932,and570,000moremen.Figure9showsthatthispatterngenerallyholdsatthestatelevel;innearlyallofofoursamplestates,therearemorenewfemalevotersthanmale.Wecanbeconfidentof
![Page 19: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
thesedifferencesinIllinois,wheremorethan90%ofthesimulationssupporttheconclusionthatfemalemobilizationwaslarger,andsomewhatconfidentinConnecticutandKansas(wheremorethan80%ofthesimulationsshowmorenewfemalevotersthanmale.(Inanotherthreestates—Iowa,Missouri,andOklahoma—75%ormoreofthesimulationsarealsoconsistentwiththisconclusion).Thus,inmoststates,theexpectationthatthelargernumbersofinactivewomenavailableformobilizationwouldmeanwomenwereresponsibleformorenewballotsthanmenduringtheNewDealperiodisconfirmedinanumberofstatesin1936,whennewmobilizationwasconsiderable.
Figure9
Changeinnumberofvotescastbywomenandmen,1932to1936
WiththeexceptionofKentucky,Democratstendedtogainvotersin1936(seeFigure10).MoreofthenewDemocraticvotescomefromwomenthanmenineightofourtenstates,althoughagain,differencesaresmallinanumberofcases.Sincetheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeseestimatesarelarge,wecanonlybeconfidentaboutthesedifferencesinConnecticut;over90%ofthesimulationsindicatethatDemocratspickedupmorevotesfromwomenthanfrommen.Thelargemobilizationofvotersin1936generatedgainsfortheRepublicanpartyaswell(seeFigure11).Thedifferencesbetweenmenandwomenaresmall,however,soouroverallconclusionisthatin1936,inplaceswhereRepublicansgainedmalevotes,theygainedasimilarnumberoffemalevotes.5
5Massachusettsstandsoutasanexception,butthesimulationfailedtoconvergeforMassachusetts,1936,sowehavelessconfidenceinthatestimatesassociatedwiththatelection.
![Page 20: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
Figure10ChangeinnumberofDemocraticvotescastbywomenandmen,1932to1936
Figure11ChangeinnumberofRepublicanvotescastbywomenandmen,1932to1936
![Page 21: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
Wehaveahardertimeinferringthemechanismsfortheallocationofpartisanvotesgainedin1936,comparedto1932,sincethenumberofnewentrantstotheelectoratewasquitelarge(over1.4million),butthegainsforDemocratsweresmaller(900,000),andRepublicansexperiencedgainsaswell.Asaresult,avarietyofpossiblemechanismscouldbeatworkbetween1932and1936:MobilizationofRepublicans,mobilizationofDemocrats,conversionfromDemocratictoRepublican,and/orconversionfromRepublicantoDemocrat.Itisnotpossibleforustosaywithmuchconfidencewhichmechanisms,andtowhatextent,explainelectoralchangein1936,orifdifferentmechanismscharacterizemenandwomen.Althoughtheyremainpossible,theestimates,intheaggregate,revealnostrikinggenderdifferencesinthesedynamics,exceptfortheevidenceofgreaterturnoutgainsamongwomencomparedtomen.
TheContributionofWomentoNewDealRealignment
Overall,wefindmenandwomencontributedinroughlyequalnumbers,butindifferentways,toNewDealrealignment.Inboth1932and1936wefindevidencethatthenumberofnewfemalevotersenteringthesystemexceededthenumberofnewmalevoters:Inoursample,120,000morewomenthanmenenteredtheelectoratein1932(almostexclusivelyattributabletoIllinois)and300,000morewomenthanmenenteredtheelectoratein1936.Aspreviousscholarshaveexpected(e.g.,Andersen1979),women’sunder‐mobilizationrelativetomentranslatedintomorenewfemalethanmalevotersduringtheNewDealrealignmentperiod.Atthesametime,wefindthatwomenintheelectoratepriortothe1930sweresomewhatmorelikelytodefectfromtheirpre‐NewDealpartisanship(i.e.,womenwhovotedRepublicanin1928weremorelikelytovoteDemocraticin1932thanweremenwhovotedRepublicanin1928),consistentwiththeexpectationthatpartisanshipwouldbelessstableamongfemalevoterswhohadbeenintheactiveelectorateforashorterperiod(e.g.,Andersen1979,Converse1969,1976).However,becausetherewerefewerwomenintheactiveelectorateoverall,mobilizationaccountedformorenewDemocraticvotesamongwomenthanitdidamongmen.
Despitethefactthatmorenewwomenthannewmenweremobilizedinthese
elections,thenumberofnewDemocraticvotesoverallthatcanbeattributedtowomenisnotsubstantiallydifferentthanthenumberofnewDemocraticvotesthatcanbeattributedtomen:Inourtensamplestates,weestimatethatjustoveronemillionfemaleDemocraticvoteswereadded(1.07million)in1932andalittlemorethanonemillionadditionalmaleDemocraticvotes(1.11million),plusabout550,000additionalfemaleDemocraticvotesandabout320,000additionalmaleDemocraticvotesin1936.Whilemorenewfemalethanmalevotersenteredtheactiveelectoratein1932and1936,morenewmaleDemocraticvotesweregeneratedbyconversion(menwerelesslikelytodefect,buttheirdefectionscamefromalargerbaseofestablishedvotersandthusgeneratedmoreDemocraticballots).Thus,thecombinedeffectsofmobilizationandconversionallowedtheDemocratstodrawnearlyequalnumbersofnewvotersfromtheranksofthemaleandfemaleelectoratein1932and1936:1.4millionadditionalvotesfrommenand1.6millionadditionalvotesfromwomen.
![Page 22: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
ConclusionsConventionalnarrativesofNewDealrealignmentoverlooktheimpactofnew
femalevotersonthefortunesoftheDemocrats.Bothmechanismsofrealignment—mobilizationandconversion—appeartohavecharacterizedwomen’scontributiontoNewDealrealignment:Duetolowerturnout,manywomenwereavailableformobilization,andthosewhohadvotedpreviously(mostlyforRepublicans)lackedthereinforcementofpartisanshipofferedbylong‐termpoliticalparticipation.Andindeed,manywomeneitherconvertedfromRepublicansupport(particularlyin1932)orwerenewly‐mobilizedbyDemocrats(especiallyin1936).
Interestingly,althoughtheshiftinsupporttotheDemocrats—measuredasthe
changeinDemocraticvoteshare—wassmalleramongmen(in1932),themaleelectoratewaslargersothenetresultisthatDemocraticgainscameinroughlyequalnumbersfrommenandwomen—about1.6millionadditionalwomenand1.4millionadditionalmenacrossbothelections.Inourtensamplestatesover4.5millionmenand3.3millionwomensupportedtheDemocraticcandidateRooseveltin1936.GiventhatDemocraticcandidateSmithreceived3millionvotesfrommenandonly1.7millionvotesfromwomeninthesamestatesin1928,thejointimpactofmobilizationandconversiononthefemaleelectorateacrossthe1932‐1936periodisclearlyverylarge.By1936,Democratshadattractedanimpressive95%morefemalevoters(from1.7millionin1928to3.3millionin1936)comparedtoabout50%moremalevoters(from3.0millionto4.5million).
AccountsofNewDealrealignmentthatignorethegradualandpersistentincreasein
women’sturnoutmissanimportantelementofmobilizationthataccountsforahugenumberofnewvotersinthe1930s.Insomestates,womenwereclearlywellincorporatedintoelectoralpoliticsbytheendoftherealignmentera—therateofturnoutforwomeninseveralsamplestateswasnearly65%by1936.Thislevelofmobilizationwouldbeconsideredremarkableinourcurrentera.
Womenshapedthesize,pattern,andoutcomeofNewDealrealignment.The
massivechangeintheelectoralfortunesoftheDemocraticpartyinthe1930swasdue,inroughlyequalmeasure,totheballotsofmenandwomen.Only16yearsaftertheextensionofsuffragetowomenandafterearlyaccountsdismissedwomen’ssuffrageasadisappointmentorfailure,womenwerealargeandincreasinglyimportantsourceofelectoralsupportfortheemergingDemocraticmajority.
![Page 23: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
References
Andersen,Kristi.2014.“ConstructingaNewMajority:TheDepression,theNewDeal,andtheDemocrats.”InTheCQGuidetoU.S.PoliticalParties,eds.MajorieR.Hershey,BarryC.Burden,andChristinaWolbrecht.Washington,D.C.:CongressionalQuarterlyPress.
Andersen,Kristi.1979.TheCreationofaDemocraticMajority,1928‐1936.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Berelson,BernardR.,PaulF.Lazarsfeld,andWilliamN.McPhee.1954.Voting:AStudyofOpinionFormationinaPresidentialElection.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Blakey,GladysC.1928.AHandyDigestofElectionLaws.Washington,D.C.:LeagueofWomenVoters.
Brown,Courtney.1988.“MassDynamicsofU.S.PresidentialCompetitions,1928‐1936.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview82(December):1153‐81.
Burnham,WalterDean.1970.CriticalElectionsandtheMainspringsofAmericanPolitics.NewYork:Norton.
Burnham,WalterDean.1974.“TheoryandVotingResearch:SomeReflectionsonConverse’s‘ChangeintheAmericanElectorate.’”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview68(September):1002‐23.
Burnham,WalterDean.1981.“TheSystemof1896:AnAnalysis.”InTheEvolutionofAmericanElectoralSystems,eds.PaulKleppner,WalterDeanBurnham,RonaldP.Formisano,SamuelP.Hays,RichardJensen,andWilliamG.Shade.WestportCT:GreenwoodPress.
Corder,J.KevinandChristinaWolbrecht.N.d.CountingWomen’sBallots:FemaleVoteChoicefromSuffrageThroughtheNewDeal.Manuscript.
Campbell,Angus,PhilipE.Converse,WarrenE.Miller,andDonaldE.Stokes.1960.TheAmericanVoter.NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,Inc.
Erikson,RobertS.andKentL.Tedin.1981.“The1928‐1936PartisanRealignment:TheCasefortheConversionHypothesis.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview75:951‐62.
Gamm,Gerald.1989.TheMakingoftheNewDealDemocrats:VotingBehaviorandRealignmentinBoston,1920‐1940.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Goldstein,JoelH.1984.TheEffectsoftheAdoptionofWomanSuffrage:SexDifferencesinVotingBehavior—Illinois,1914‐21.NewYork:Praeger.
Gourevitch,PeterAlexis.1984.“BreakingwithOrthodoxy:ThePoliticsofEconomicPolicyResponsestotheDepressionofthe1930s.”InternationalOrganization38(Winter):95‐129.
Gosnell,HaroldF.1942.GrassrootsPolitics:NationalVotingBehaviorofTypicalStates.Washington,D.C.:AmericanCouncilonPublicAffairs.
Gosnell,HaroldF.1930.WhyEuropeVotes.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
![Page 24: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
23
Green,DonaldP.,BradleyPalmquist,andEricShickler.2002.PartisanHeartsandMinds:PoliticalPartiesandtheSocialIdentityofVoters.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Hawley,GeorgeandInakiSagarazu.2012.“Wheredidthevotesgo?ReassessingAmericanpartyrealignmentsviavotetransferesbetweenmajorpartiesfrom1860to2008.”ElectoralStudies31:726‐39.
Johnston,Richard.2006.“PartyIdentification:UnmovedMoverorSumofPreferences?”AnnualReviewofPoliticalScience9:329‐51.
Key,V.O.,Jr.1949.SouthernPoliticsinStateandNation.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.
Key,V.O.,Jr.1955.“ATheoryofCriticalElections.”JournalofPolitics17(February):3‐18.
Keyssar,Alexander.2000.TheRighttoVote:TheContestedHistoryofDemocracyintheUnitedStates.NewYork:BasicBooks.
King,Gary.1997.ASolutiontotheEcologicalInferenceProblem:DeconstructingIndividualBehaviorfromAggregateData.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kleppner,Paul.1982.WhoVoted?TheDynamicsofElectoralTurnout,1840‐1940.NewYork:Praeger.
Ladd,EverettC.andCharlesD.Hadley.1975.TransformationoftheAmericanPartySystem:PoliticalCoalitionsfromtheNewDealtothe1970’s.NewYork:Norton.
Lazarsfeld,PaulR.,Berelson,BernardR.,andHazelGaudet.1948.ThePeople’sChoice.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
McPhee,WilliamN.andJackFerguson.1962.”PoliticalImmunization.”InPublicOpinionandCongressionalElections,eds.WilliamN.McPheeandWilliamA.Glaser.NewYork:FreePressofGlencoe.
Nardulli,PeterF.1995.“TheConceptofCriticalRealignment,ElectoralBehavior,andPoliticalChange.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview89(March):10‐22.
Ogburn,WilliamF.andInezGoltra.1919.“HowWomenVote:AStudyofAnElectioninPortland,Oregon.”PoliticalScienceQuarterly34:413‐33.
Prindle,DavidF.1979.“VoterTurnout,CriticalElections,andtheNewDealRealignment.”SocialScienceHistoryIII(Winter):144‐70.
Raftery,AdrianE.1995.“BayesianModelSelectioninSocialResearch.”SociologicalMethodology25:111‐163.
Rice,StuartA.andMalcolmM.Willey.1924.“AmericanWomen’sIneffectiveUseoftheVote.”CurrentHistory20(July):641‐47.
Richardson,S.andC.Monfort.2000.“EcologicalCorrelationStudies.”InSpatialEpidemiology:MethodsandApplications,eds.P.Elliott,J.Wakefield,N.G.Best,andD.J.Briggs.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Robinson,WilliamS.1950.“EcologicalCorrelationandtheBehaviorofIndividuals.”AmericanSociologicalReview15:351‐57.
![Page 25: Counting Women’s Ballots: Female after in the U.S. of ...€¦ · Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters after Suffrage in the U.S. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty‐sixth](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f06f3db7e708231d41a8ea5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
24
Salisbury,RobertH.andMichaelMacKuen.1981.“OntheStudyofPartyRealignment.”JournalofPolitics43:523‐530.
Sundquist,JamesL.1983.DynamicsofthePartySystem:AlignmentandRealignmentintheUnitedStates.RevisedEdition.Washington,D.C.:TheBrookingsInstitution.
Wakefield,Jon.2004.“Ecologicalinferencefor2×2tables(withdiscussion).”JournaloftheRoyalStatisticalSociety167:385‐445.
Wanat,John.1979.“TheApplicationofNon‐Analytic,MostPossibleEstimationTechnique:TheRelativeImpactofMobilizationandConversionofVotesintheNewDeal.”PoliticalMethodology6(3):357‐74.