Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Party Politics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Norris, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

May's Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited

Leaders, Officers, Members and Voters in British Political Parties

Pippa Norris

Explaining ideological conflict has always been a classic theme of studies of party organizations. The aim of this paper is to re-examine May's law, based on rational choice theory, which suggests that due to differential incentives sub-leaders are likely to prove the most extreme stratum in party organizations, while non-leaders are the most moderate, and top leaders are located equidistant between these groups. The study, based on large-scale surveys of politicians, local constituency officers, party members and voters in the 1992 British general election, throws considerable doubt on this proposition.

Key Words: British members • leaders • parties • voters

Party Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 29-47 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/1354068895001001002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
G. Bingham Powell Jr
The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules
Comparative Political Studies, December 1, 2009; 42(12): 1475 - 1497.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Party PoliticsHome page
J. Hopkin
The Problem with Party Finance: Theoretical Perspectives on the Funding of Party Politics
Party Politics, November 1, 2004; 10(6): 627 - 651.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Party PoliticsHome page
J. Saglie and K. Heidar
Democracy within Norwegian Political Parties: Complacency or Pressure for Change?
Party Politics, July 1, 2004; 10(4): 385 - 405.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Party PoliticsHome page
R. Herrera
The Origins of Opinion of American Party Activists
Party Politics, April 1, 1999; 5(2): 237 - 252.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Party PoliticsHome page
R. Mule
Explaining the Party-Policy Link: Established Approaches and Theoretical Developments
Party Politics, October 1, 1997; 3(4): 493 - 512.
[Abstract]