A Predictive Model of Political Stratification in a Mass Democracy

  • Ian Budge
  • J. A. Brand
  • Michael Margolis
  • A. L. M. Smith


If we are to use political stratification as the major explanatory concept in ensuing analyses of the Glasgow data, some theoretical rationale must be advanced to show why its effect on attitudes and behaviour should be anticipated, why it is important, and how it emerges. Systematic discussion of these points leads directly to an exposition of the assumptions we derive from previous research and of the predictions we deduce from them: thus to a full presentation of the a priori predictive model formulated before any of our analyses were undertaken.


Predictive Success Great Agreement Elector Vote Political Demand Party Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 9.
    see James S. Coleman, Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (New York, 1964) pp. 71–3.Google Scholar
  2. 17.
    S. Stouffer, Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties (New York, 1955 chap. 3; McClosky, APSR Lvm (1964) 378.Google Scholar
  3. 18.
    R. Rose, ‘Political Ideas of English Party Activists’,APSR LVI(1962) 360–71;Google Scholar
  4. see S. E. Finer, H. Berrington, D. J. Bartholomew, Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons (London, 1961 ).Google Scholar
  5. 22.
    D. Marvick and C. Nixon, ‘Recruitment Contrasts in Rival Campaign Groups’, in D. Marvick (ed.), Political Decision-Makers (New York, 1961) p. 194.Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    J.C. Davies, Human Nature in Politics (New York, 1962 ) p. 24.Google Scholar
  7. 26.
    See R. P. Abelson, ‘Mathematical Models of the Distribution of Attitudes under Controversy’ in Frederiksen and Gulliksen (eds), Contributions to Mathematical Psychology (New York, 1964 )Google Scholar
  8. M. J. Taylor, ‘Towards a Mathematical Theory of Influence and Attitude Change’, Human Relations, Sep 1968, pp. 121–39.Google Scholar
  9. 28.
    R. A. Dahl, Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, 1956 ) p. 84.Google Scholar
  10. 29.
    F. I. Greenstein, American Party System (Englewood Heights, N.J., 1963) pp. 34–6, 40, 57–60, 73Google Scholar
  11. 30.
    A. Ranney and W. Kendall, Democracy and the American Party System (New York, 1956 ) p. 85Google Scholar
  12. V. O. Key, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (New York, 1958 ) pp. 180–2.Google Scholar
  13. A. Campbell, P. Converse, W. Miller, D. E. Stokes, The American Voter (New York, 1960 ) pp. 194–209.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    S. M. Lipset, Some Social Requisites of Democracy’, in Cnudde and Neubauer, Empirical Democratic Theory pp. 151–92.Google Scholar
  15. See N. Polsby, R. A. Dentier, P. A. Smith (eds), Politics and Social Life (Boston, 1963 ).Google Scholar
  16. See A. Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York, 1957 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ian Budge, J. A. Brand, Michael Margolis and A. L. M. Smith 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Budge
  • J. A. Brand
  • Michael Margolis
  • A. L. M. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations