found individuals living on the reservation tended to vote Republican and those off the reservation Democratic. They explained this by arguing that urban Indians have more contact with other minorities so are more likely to see the Democratic party's support of other minority rights as relevant to their lives. Almost 10 years later using NORC data from 1972 and 1976, Ritt (1979) found that American Indians were more Democratic than whites but not more so than other minorities and more independent than all other racial/ethnic groups. Ritt also found that American Indians who were female, urban and older were more likely to be Democrats, but ideology was not strongly related to party. McCool (1982) examined voting by precinct in Arizona between 1952 and 1980 and concluded that party voting varied from tribe to tribe and there was much split ticket voting. Thus American Indians' voting was affected more by issue positions than partisan loyalties. Looking at voting of American Indians in Oklahoma in the 2000s, Min and Savage (2012, 2014) found that American Indians vote Democratic and that their low levels of socio economic status, not cultural ties or identity explain their Democratic voting patterns. Clearly some of the inconsistencies in the findings were the result of time. For example, American Indians may have been more likely to be Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s than today since President Nixon was seen as supportive of American Indian policies. Many of the studies too suffer from examining just one tribe or state or were based on bivariate analyses. Thus, there is much room to improve our knowledge of American Indians' partisanship. Here we add to our understanding of American Indian party identification by using a national sample of 300 American Indians to estimate their partisan attachment and then explain variation in their attachment. Most specifically we believe that the
found individuals living on the reservation tended to vote Republican and those off the reservation Democratic. They explained this by arguing that urban Indians have more contact with other minorities so are more likely to see the Democratic party's support of other minority rights as relevant to their lives. Almost 10 years later using NORC data from 1972 and 1976, Ritt (1979) found that American Indians were more Democratic than whites but not more so than other minorities and more independent than all other racial/ethnic groups. Ritt also found that American Indians who were female, urban and older were more likely to be Democrats, but ideology was not strongly related to party. McCool (1982) examined voting by precinct in Arizona between 1952 and 1980 and concluded that party voting varied from tribe to tribe and there was much split ticket voting. Thus American Indians' voting was affected more by issue positions than partisan loyalties. Looking at voting of American Indians in Oklahoma in the 2000s, Min and Savage (2012, 2014) found that American Indians vote Democratic and that their low levels of socio economic status, not cultural ties or identity explain their Democratic voting patterns. Clearly some of the inconsistencies in the findings were the result of time. For example, American Indians may have been more likely to be Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s than today since President Nixon was seen as supportive of American Indian policies. Many of the studies too suffer from examining just one tribe or state or were based on bivariate analyses. Thus, there is much room to improve our knowledge of American Indians' partisanship. Here we add to our understanding of American Indian party identification by using a national sample of 300 American Indians to estimate their partisan attachment and then explain variation in their attachment. Most specifically we believe that the
herrick&mendez%20WPSA.docx