MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082001420 · doi:10.7202/030948ar

“Smashers” and “Rummies”: Voters and the Rise of Parties in Charlotte County, New Brunswick, 1846‑1857

2006· article· en· W2082001420 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gail G. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingPoliticsPeriod (music)PopulationPolitical scienceSplit-ticket votingPublic administrationVoting behaviorPolitical economyLawSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case study of a single county helps to explain the rise of political parties in midnineteenth-century New Brunswick. While Charlotte County was not a microcosm of New Brunswick as a whole, fully 10 per cent of the province's population lived there at midcentury. More important, the voting patterns that emerged in Charlotte County did typify the province-wide election results. Three distinct components are necessary to the evolution of a political party: the “organization proper,” composed of party officials and active members; the “party in office,” composed of elected members (caucuses, floor leaders, and whips); and the “party-in-the-electorate,” composed of the individual voters who attached themselves unofficially to the party by regularly supporting it at the polls. The first two components have received a good deal of attention from political historians. The role of the voter, however, has been virtually ignored. This paper seeks to fill that gap in the literature by examining the voting patterns of individual electors during the crucial decade (1846-57) that saw the rise of New Brunswick's first party system. The survival of a run of poll books made possible analysis of patterns of individual participation and response over a series of five elections during the period. The electoral patterns which emerged in Charlotte County during the decade between 1846 and 1857 clearly illustrate the evolution of a party-within-the- electorate. At the beginning of the period, voter response was mainly candidate-oriented. By the end of the period, however, the majority of electors were voting for “slates” of candidates, or parties. The issue which precipitated the transition from a pattern of candidate-based voting to one of party-based voting was temperance. Yet the transition was gradual, extending over a period of three elections, and party-based voting emerged as an outgrowth and extension of candidate-based voting. Throughout the period, voters tended to favour candidates with whom they shared a common identity of interests-people who were, in fact, very like themselves. As politicians formed factions, and then parties, they too formed alliances with others like themselves. Thus, while voters continued to favour candidates with whom they shared a common identity of interests, by 1857 those candidates were running as members of slates representing parties. Voters chose the slate of candidates, or party, whose outlook seemed most in tune with their own. For voters, then, the emergence of party-in-the-electorate represented a conscious shift in orientation, but it required no significant ideological reorientation. For historians, the emergence of party-in-the-electorate, however gradual or imperceptible, is significant, for until parties develop solid support bases among groups of voters, their evolution is incomplete.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207