21

Wilson's election was about a generation before scientific polling, so we don't and probably can't ever really know that. However, it was a fact that he ran hard on that issue. Its also a fact that, knowing that he was running on that platform, the electorate voted for Wilson in 30 of 48 states. So it seems reasonable under the circumstances to consider that ...


12

Yes and no. I'd say mostly no. One thing you should realize on questions about primaries is that the primary system itself is very new. Up until about the 1970's, state primaries and caucuses were optional side-shows, used to "market test" candidates. The actual decisions were made at nominating conventions by delegates who were largely officially unpledged ...


7

Here are a couple of descriptions from academic sources. To put it very simply, it all boils down to a classic case of corruption and patronage. It's not necessarily the case that the system gave "citizens the impression of fair elections", but it gave enough people enough of what they wanted. From Michael G. Burros (1982) "The Spanish Jury: ...


4

Katrina had a huge electoral impact. It wasn't the death so much as it was the evacuation. For a while in the immediate wake of the storm the city was simply not safe to live in. However, a significant amount of its population had no access to personal transport, so they had to be bussed out to nearby metropoli large enough to absorb them, most notably ...


2

It seems that one basic assumption in the question is stable voting behaviour of affected people. That is likely a quite difficult to test hypothesis. Like in the old paradoxon that if the dumbest person moves from country A to B he might indeed raise the average intelligence of both countries? If people are killed by a catastrophe those all cannot vote ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible