My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Comparative State Elections Project, 1968

Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
  • Kovenock, David M.
  • Prothro, James W.
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
Free Keywords
congressional elections (US Senate); government performance; gubernatorial elections; Johnson, Lyndon; national elections; national politics; political affiliation; political efficacy; political ideologies; political perceptions; presidential elections; presidential performance; social problems; state elections; state legislatures; state politics; states (USA); trust in government; voter attitudes; voting behavior
  • Abstract

    This data collection contains information gathered in a study that explored political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors within and among states and regions, and across the United States as a whole, in 1968, just after the presidential, gubernatorial, and United States senatorial elections. To facilitate comparisons within and among states, separate surveys were conducted in 13 states, chosen to represent the largest states and a variety of regions: Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas. The other 35 contiguous states and the District of Columbia were represented by an additional sample. Respondents were asked about their national and state party identification, political ideology, and perceptions of the ideological positions of the presidential candidates and the Democratic and Republican parties. Perceptions of existing problems, citizen duties, and political efficacy were also explored, along with levels of confidence in the federal and state governments. Respondents rated the potential "excellence as President" of a dozen 1968 presidential contenders, and they rated the job performance of the United States Congress, state legislatures, President Lyndon Johnson, state governors, and the major political parties. Respondents' positive and negative images of the 1968 gubernatorial and senatorial candidates, past voting behavior, participation and party contact in the 1968 election campaign, and 1968 voting behavior (from president down the ballot, including candidate choice in gubernatorial and senatorial primaries) were also elicited. Demographic data include age, sex, race, level of education, religion, church attendance, marital status, employment status, occupation, and family income.
  • Table of Contents


    • DS1: Dataset
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 1968
  • 1968-11 / 1968-12
    Collection date: 1968-11--1968-12
Geographic Coverage
  • Alabama
  • California
  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Louisiana
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • New York (state)
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Dakota
  • Texas
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Adult population of the United States of voting age, living in private households, who were at the time residents of the state in which they were living.
A total of 14 samples were drawn for this study. Separate probability samples, stratified by size of place, race, and intra-state region, were selected from each of the following 13 states: Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas. A supplementary sample, stratified by race and (disproportionately) by region and size of place, was drawn to represent all of the other 35 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. With proper weighting, the data are representative of each of the individually sampled states, of seven national regions, and of the nation as a whole.
Collection Mode
  • The study was conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.

    The data were made available through the Social Science Data Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

This study is freely available to ICPSR member institutions via web download.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 7508 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
  • Hanson, Russell C.. The political acculturation of migrants in the American states. Western Political Quarterly.45, (2), 355-383.1992.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Bauer, John R.. Patterns of Voter Participation in the American States. Social Science Quarterly.71, (4), 824-834.1990.
  • Sigelman, Lee, Berry, William D.. Cost and the calculus of voting. Political Behavior.4, (4), 419-428.1982.
    • ID: 10.1007/BF00986972 (DOI)
  • Wright, Gerald C., Jr.. Community Structure and Voting in the South. Public Opinion Quarterly.40, (2), 201-215.1976.
    • ID: 10.1086/268288 (DOI)
  • Fischer, Elizabeth M., Kovenock, David M.. Guide to the Comparative State Elections Project Survey Data. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Institute for Research in Social Science. 1975.
  • Black, Merle, Kovenock, David M., Reynolds, William C.. Political Attitudes in the Nation and the States: Comparative State Elections Project. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina. 1974.
  • Reynolds, H.T.. Rationality and attitudes toward political parties and candidates. Journal of Politics.36, (4), 983-1005.1974.
  • Wright, Gerald C., Jr.. Electoral Choice in America: Image, Party and Incumbency in State and National Elections. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina. 1974.
  • Kovenock, David M., Prohro, James W., et al. Explaining the Vote: Presidential Choices in the Nation and the States, 1968. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina. 1973.
  • Hinckley, Barbara. Incumbency and the presidential vote in Senate elections: Defining parameters of subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review.64, (3), 836-842.1970.
    • ID: (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

Kovenock, David M.; Prothro, James W. (1984): Comparative State Elections Project, 1968. Version 1. Version: v1. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset.