1. Paradigmatic models of American political development relying heavily on the role of the urban voter include Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1888)Google Scholar; Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward a Codification of Theory and Research (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1949) pp. 61–81Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Vale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. Of these only Dahl attempted to study the social composition of urban constituencies empirically, and then only with simple ethnic data contrasting foreign-born with native-born.

2. Degler, Carl N., “American Political Parties and the Rise of the City: An Interpretation.” Journal of American History 51 (06 1964): 41–59Google Scholar; Chambers, Clarke A., Seedtime of Reform: American Social Service and Social Action, 1918–1933 (1963; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Muncy, Robyn, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Frisch, Michael H., “Urban Theorists, Urban Reform, and American Political Culture in the Progressive Period,” Political Science Quarterly 97:2 (Summer 1982): 295–315Google Scholar; Martin Shefter, “Images of the City in Political Science: Communi-ties, Administrative Entities, Competitive Markets, and Seats of Chaos,” in Rodwin, Lloyd and Hollister, Robert M., eds., Cities of the Mind: Images and Themes of the City in the Social Sciences (New York: Plenum Press, 1984), 55–82Google Scholar.

3. Addams, Jane, “Why the Ward Boss Rules,” Outlook 58 (2 04 1898): 879–882Google Scholar, reprinted in Christopher Lasch, ed., The Social Thought of Jane Addams (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), 124–133; Riordan, William J., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, edited with an Introduction by McDonald, Terrence J. (Boston: Bedford Books, 1993)Google Scholar.

4. The clarion call for the institutionalist research agenda in political science was made by Theda Skocpol in “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Re-search,” in Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985): 3–37Google Scholar; On behavioral political science, see Ricci, David M., The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 133–175Google Scholar.

5. Jensen, RichardThe Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–1896 (Chicago, 1971)Google Scholar; Converse, Philip E., “Change in the American Electorate,” in Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip, eds., The Human Meaning of Social Change (New York: Russell Sage, 1972): 263–337Google Scholar; see also Bogue, Allan G., “The Quest for Numeracy: Data and Methods in American Political History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 21:1 (Summer 1990): 89–116Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard L., “The Social Analysis of American Political History—After Twenty Years,” in McCormick, The Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 89–140Google Scholar.

6. This framework is discussed at length in Ethington, Philip J., The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar. The methodological and theoretical groundwork for the present study is developed in idem, “Recasting Urban Political History: Gender, the Public, the Household, and Political Participation in Boston and San Francisco during the Progressive Era,” Social Science History 16:2 (Summer 1992): 310–333; and “Hypotheses from Habermas: Notes on Reconstructing American Political and Social History, 1890–1920,” Intellectual History Newsletter 14 (1992): 21–40.

7. Because advanced scholarship in the institutionalist framework has not examined the urban voter empirically, it is forced for evidence about the party organizations in the cities to rely on scholarship created by an antithetical model, usually that of liberal pluralism. A recent example is Orloff, Ann Shola, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State,” in Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 37–80Google Scholar.

8. See also the appendix at the end of this article.

9. Kleppner, Paul, Chicago Divided: The Making of a Black Mayor (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1985)Google Scholar is a rare exception using precinct-level data, and also the finest example of the potential for multivariate electoral analysis at the municipal level.

10. Shefter, Martin, “The Electoral Foundations of the Political Machine: New York City, 1884–1897,” in Silbey, Joel H., Bogue, Allan G., and Flanigan, William H., eds., The History of American Electoral Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 263–298Google Scholar; Finegold, Kenneth, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy: Reform Outcomes in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1985)Google Scholar; J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “The Impact of Electoral Behavior on Public Policy: The Urban Dimension, 1900,” in Silbey, Bogue, and Flanagan, eds., The History of American Electoral Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press), treats only urban places of 25,000 persons or less.

11. Samuel H. Preston, “United States Census Data, 1910: Public Use Sample” (Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research) [ICPSR 9166].

12. Aggregated by wards (these units are called ”assembly districts” in San Francisco and New York, but will be referred to generically as “wards.”) This four-city sample of the 1910 PUS is analyzed by 112 ward units, with an average subsample size of 285 observations per ward.

13. Ethington, “Recasting Urban Political History.”

14. The weight factor is the square root of the total number of eligible voters in each ward.

15. It will suffice to concentrate on postwar scholarship in this essay. The major models have appeared in Hofstadter, RichardThe Age of Reform (New York: Vintage, 1955)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform of Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (1964): 157–69Google Scholar; Holli, Melvin G., Reform in Detroit: Hazen S. Pingree and Urban Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Buenker, John D., Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York: Charles Scribners, 1973)Google Scholar; Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Erie, Stephen P., Rainbow's End: Irish Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

16. Significant attempts to apply the quantitative methods of the “new political history” to the municipal level during the Progressive era include Allswang, John M., A House For All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago, 1890–1936 Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1971)Google Scholar; Shefter, “The Electoral Foundations of the Political Machine”; and Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy.” Allswang's study analyzes only ethnic (not socioeconomic) data. Scheiner, Seth, “Commission Government in the Progressive Era: The New Brunswick, New Jersey, Example,” Journal of Urban History 12:2 (02 1986): 157–179Google Scholar, is a rich analysis for a city of smaller size during this period.

17. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, “The Impact of Electoral Behavior on Public Policy: The Urban Dimension, 1900,” in Silbey, Joel H., Bogue, Allan G., and Flanigan, William H., eds. The History of American Electoral Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978): 347–371Google Scholar; McDonald, Terrence J., and Ward, Sally K., eds., The Politics of Urban Fiscal Policy (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984)Google Scholar; Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N. “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17 (1987): 587–612Google Scholar; Erie, Rainbow's End.

18. Finegold, “Progressivism.” Finegold's data are not pooled to enable simultaneous analysis of more than one city in the same model, however. Moreover, the limitations of his demographic data force him to rely on election data as the independent variables for predicting subsequent election outcomes, a method which has its uses but one which can only describe constituencies relative to constituencies in other elections (i.e., “those who voted for candidate X”) rather than as members of sociologically defined groups (e.g. “Irish Catholics,” or “Low-Blue Collar Workers”). The absence of multicity studies of voting behavior does not detract from the value of many multicity studies of other aspects of urban politics and policy. See, for example, Wolfinger, Raymond and Field, J. O., “Political Ethos and the Structure of City Government,” American Political Science Review 60 (1966): 306–326Google Scholar; Shefter, Martin, “Regional Receptivity to Reform: The Legacy of the Progressive Era,” Political Science Quarterly 98:3 (Fall 1983): 459–483Google Scholar; Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N., “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17:3 (Winter, 1987): 587–612Google Scholar; Bridges, Amy, “Winning the West to Municipal Reform,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 27:4 (06 1992): 494–518Google Scholar.

19. Hays, “The Politics of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,” is one of the most widely cited essays in American historiography. Finegold does not attempt to test Hay's thesis about charter reform. However, his analysis of mayoral elections does undermine the Hays thesis by indicating that “progressive” candidates received a coalition of support from both upper-class and working-class voters. See further discussion below.

20. Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of Theory and Research (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949)Google Scholar; Handlin, Oscar, The Uprooted (New York: Little, Brown, 1951)Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Allswang, John M., Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters: An American Symbiosis (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Steven Erie, Rainbow's End. For an intellectual critique of the postwar liberal pluralists, see McDonald, Terrence J., “The Problem of the Political in Recent American Urban History: Liberal Pluralism and the Rise of Functionalism,” Social History 10:3 (10 1985): 323–345Google Scholar.

21. Erie, Steven P., “Politics, the Public Sector, and Irish Social Mobility: San Francisco, 1870–1900,” Western Political Quarterly 31:2 (06 1978): 274–289Google Scholar; idem, “Bringing the Bosses Back In: The Irish Political Machines and Urban Policy Making,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990): 269–281; Erie's article is a response in part to an exchange between McDonald, Terrence and Katznelson, Ira in this journal: McDonald, Terrence J., “The Burdens of Urban History: The Theory of the State in Recent American Social History,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989)Google Scholar; and Katznelson, Ira, “The State and the City: Burdens in the Analysis of American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989)Google Scholar.

22. Mowry, George E., “The California Progressive and His Rationale: A Study in Middle Class Politics,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 36 (09, 1949): 239–250Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955)Google Scholar.

23. Wiebe, Robert, The Search For Order (New York: Hill and Wang, 1968)Google Scholar.

24. Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (1964): 157–169Google Scholar;Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

25. Buenker, John D., “The Urban Political Machine and Woman Suffrage: A Study in Political Adaptability,” The Historian 33 (02 1971): 264–277Google Scholar; idem, “The Mahatma and Progressive Reform: Martin Lomasney as Lawmaker, 1911–1917,” New England Quarterly 44 (September 1971): 397–419; idem, Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York: 1973); idem, “Dynamics of Chicago Ethnic Politics, 1900–1930, ” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society67:2 (April 1974): 175–199; Czitrom, Daniel, “Underworlds and Underdogs: Big Tim Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York, 1889–1913,” Journal of American History 78:2 (09 1991): 536–558Google Scholar; both works were preceded in this vein by Huthmacher, j. Joseph, “Urban Liberalism and the Age of Reform,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 49:2 (09 1962)Google Scholar.

26. Rogin, Michael P. and Shover, John L., Political Change in California: Critical Elections and Social Movements, 1890–1966 (Westport, CT: Greenwood: 1970)Google Scholar; Issel, William, “Class and Ethnic Conflict in San Francisco Political History: The Reform Charter of 1898,” Labor History 18 (1977): 340–359Google Scholar; Tygiel, Jules, ”‘Where Unionism Holds Undisputed Sway’: A Reappraisal of San Francisco's Union Labor Party,” California History 62 (1983): 196–215Google Scholar.

27. Hammack, David C., Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1982)Google Scholar.

28. McDonald, Terrence J., The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Socioeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Einhorn, Robin L., Property Rules: Political Economy in Chicago, 1833–1872 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Ethington, Philip J., The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

29. Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” p. 35.

30. Variations on the institutional theme include Ira Katznelson's, Amy Bridges', and Richard Oestreicher's respective arguments that the structure of party competition in American cities thwarted the formation of working-class constituencies. These, however, are primarily studies of social-group formation rather than urban regime and policy formation. Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Bridges, Amy, “Becoming American: The Working Classes in the United States before the Civil War,” in Katznelson, Ira and Zolberg, Aristide, eds., Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United Slates (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 157–196Google Scholar; Oestreicher, Richard, “Urban Working-Class Political Behavior and Theories of American Electoral Politics, 1870–1940,” Journal of American History 74 (1988): 1257–1286Google Scholar.

31. Only a handful of titles can be mentioned here: Freedman, Estelle B., “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512–529Google Scholar; Baker, Paula, “The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780–1920” American Historical Review 89:3 (06 1984): 620–647Google Scholar; Koven, Seth and Michel, Sonya, “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of the Welfare State in France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States, 1880–1920,” American Historical Review 95:4 (10 1990): 1076–1108Google Scholar; Muncy, Robyn, Creating a female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the Unied States (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar. All of these studies treat the urban polity in some fashion, because women's institutions were largely based in the cities and oriented toward the solution of urban-based problems. Two studies emphasizing the role of women activists specifically in municipal politics are Flanagan, Maureen A., “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman's City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” American Historical Review 95 (1990): 1032–1050Google Scholar; Deutsch, Sarah, “Learning to Talk More Like a Man: Boston Women's Class-Bridging Organizations, 1870–1940,” American Historical Review 97:2 (04 1992): 379–404Google Scholar. Neither of these studies, however, is institutionalist: Each claims that women were a distinct constituency with a different attitude toward politics and policy, grounded in their womanhood.

32. I treat this gendered model in a separate study. Philip J. Ethington, “Women Voters and Politicians in the Progressive Era: A Report on Mass and Elite Participation in Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco” (paper presented to the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association, August 14, 1993).

33. By “regime” in this article I refer generally to the policy characteristics of the ruling party or candidate representing that party. Here I am concerned primarily with identifying only two “types” of urban regimes in the Progressive era, within a typology that has been largely constructed by the urban studies political-science literature about that period. For a fresh start on identifying specific urban “regime types,” see Stone, Clarence, “Summing Up: Urban Regimes, Development Policy, and Political Arrangements,” in Stone and Sanders, Heywood T., eds., The Politics of Urban Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 269–290Google Scholar.

34. Teaford, Jon, “Finis for Tweed and Steffens: Rewriting the History of Urban Rule,” Reviews in American History 10 (1982): 133–49Google Scholar; Thelen, David P., “Urban Politics: Beyond Bosses and Reformers,” American Historical Review 97:1 (02 1992): 27–28Google Scholar.

35. Rodgers, Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10 (1982): 113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Schiesl, Martin J., The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1800–1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

37. Representative of these are Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, “Methods of Pre-paring and Administering the Budget of Cook County” (Chicago, 1911); and the report which was perhaps cited more than any other: idem, “The Nineteen Local Governments in Chicago: A Multiplicity of Overlapping Taxing Bodies With Many Elective Officials” [pamphlet] (Chicago, December 1913). The equivalent body in Boston was the Finance Commission, whose first report, published in 1909, also presented the plan for charter revision which was passed by the city's voters in that year. The new charter also provided for the perpetuation of the Finance Commission. Boston Finance Commission, Report (Boston 1909).

38. Goodnow, Frank J., Municipal Home Rule: A Study in Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1895), 26Google Scholar.

39. Contemporaries distinguished between poverty (a relatively objective economic condition) and pauperism (a character trait typified by the loss of the work ethic: Known as the “undeserving poor.”) See Gordon, Linda, “Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Thought in the United States, 1890–1935,” American Historical Review 97:1 (02 1992): 27–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

40. For a clear treatment of this antipathy, see Pegram, Thomas R., Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870–1922 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

41. For another typology see McDonagh, Eileen Lorenzi, “Representative Democracy and State Building in the Progressive Era,” American Political Science Review (12 1992)Google Scholar.

42. Skowronek, Stephen, Building A New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982): 1–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Ethington, The Public City, chapters 7 and 8.

44. Lowi, Theodore, At the Pleasure of the Mayor: Patronage and Power in New York City, 1898–1958 (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Cerillo, Augustus Jr, “The Reform of Municipal Government in New York City: From Seth Low to John Purroy Mitchel,” New York Historical Society Quarterly 57 (1973): 51–71Google Scholar; Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” pp. 52–133.

45. Addams, Jane, “Why the Ward Boss Rules” Philanthropy and Social Progress: Seven Essays by Miss Jane Addams, Robert A. Woods, Father JOS. Huntington, Professor Franklin H. Giddings and Bernard Rosanquet, introduction by Adams, Henry C. (New York: Crowell, 1893)Google Scholar.

46. Boston Herald 7 June 1907; the measure at hand was an immigration restriction bill in Congress sponsored by Massachusetts' own representative, Augustus Gardener, and backed by his father-in-law, the nativist Massachusetts senator, Lodge, Henry Cabot. Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 162–165Google Scholar.

47. The interpretation of progressive political victories as products of public exposes has been argued most effectively by McCormick, Richard L., From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893–1910 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; and idem, “The Discovery that Business Corrupts Politics: A Reappraisal of the Origins of Progressivism,” American Historical Review 86 (April 1981): 247–274.

48. The devastating blows to party government in California, which included direct democracy amendments to the state constitution and the notorious “cross-filing” primary provision, are covered in Key, V. O. Jr and Crouch, Winston W., The Initiative and Referendum in California (1939)Google Scholar; Hichborn, Franklin, “The Party, the Machine, and the Vote: The Story of Cross-Filing in California Politics,” California Historical Society Quarterly 38 (12 1959): 349–357 and 39 (March 1960): 19–34Google Scholar.

49. For a very rich treatment of these tendencies in action, see Pegram, Thomas R., Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870–1922 (Urbana andChicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

50. Bean, Walton, Boss Ruefs San Francisco: The Story of the Union Labor Party, Big Business, and the Graft Prosecution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Issel, William and Cherny, Robert, San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986), 161–164)Google Scholar; Kazin, Michael, Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades and Union Power in the Progressive Era (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

51. Boston Herald, January 2, 1910.

52. Chicago Daily News, April 3, 1911.

53. McCarthy, Michael P., “Prelude to Armageddon: Charles E. Merriam and the Chicago Mayoral Election of 191,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 67:5 (11 1974) 505–518Google Scholar; Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” pp. 354–372.

54. Cerillo, Augustus Jr, “The Rise of Municipal Government in New York City: From Seth Low to John Purrow Mitchel,” New York Historical Society Quarterly 63:4 (10 1979):60Google Scholar.

55. Lowi, At the Pleasure of the Mayor; Cerillo, “The Reform of Municipal Government in New York City” Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” pp. 52–133.

56. Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” p. 103.

57. New York Times, September 28, 1913.

58. Quoted in Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy,” 104–105.

59. New York Times, September 30, 1913.

60. See Table 5 in appendix for the average size of each group in each city.

61. Kleppner, Paul, Continuity and Change in Electoral Politics, 1893–1928 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

62. Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

63. Degler, Carl, “American Political Parties and the Rise of the City”: Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970)Google Scholar; idem, “Periodization Schemes and ‘Party Systems’: The ‘System of 1896’ as a Case in Point,” Social Science History 10:3 (Fall 1983): 263–313; Kleppner, Continuity and Change, pp. 71–86.

64. Addams, “Why the Ward Boss Rules”; Simkhovitch, Mary Kingsbury, “Friendship and Politics,” Political Science Quarterly 17:2 (06 1902) 189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riordan, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall.

65. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, p. 97.

66. Buenker, , “Dynamics of Chicago Ethnic Politics”; Gosnell, Harold F., Machine Politics: The Chicago Model (University of Chicago Press, 1935)Google Scholar.

67. Terrence J. McDonald, “Introduction,” Plunkitt of Tammany Hall.

68. Ruef, Abraham, “The Road I Travelled,” San Franclisco Bulletin, 05 23, 1912Google Scholar.

69. Erie, Rainbow's End, pp. 67–106; Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N., “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17:3 (Winter 1987): 587–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “The Impact of Electoral Behavior on Public Policy,” p. 351.

71. De Witt, Benjamin Parke, (1915) The Progressive Movement: A Non-partisan Discussion of Current Tendencies in American Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1915), p. 277Google Scholar.

72. Beard, Charles A., “Introduction,” in Haines, Charles G. and Dimock, Marshall E., eds., Essays on the Law and Practice of Governmental Administration: A Volume in Honor of Frank Johnson Goodnow (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935)Google Scholar; Shefter, “Images of the City in Political Science”.

73. See, for example, Marks, Gary and Burbank, Matthew, “Immigrant Support for the American Socialist Party, 1912 and 1920,” Social Science History 14:2 (Summer 1990): 175–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74. Edwards, Alba M., “A Social Economic Grouping of the Gainful Workers of the United States,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 27 (1933): 377–387Google Scholar;Thernstrom, Stephan, The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880–1970 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 289–302Google Scholar.

75. The household variables (married, single, lives with children, lives with boarders, etc.) are not used in this paper. Elsewhere (Ethington, “Recasting Urban Political History”) I have shown these to be of great predictive value in models of voter participation and in voting on gender-relevant issues.

76. Kleppner, Paul, Chicago Divided: The Making of a Black Mayor (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1985), 67–68Google Scholar.

77. Boston mayoral election, January 11, 1910, Boston Municipal Register (1913), p. 309Google Scholar; Boston presidential election of 1908, Boston Municipal Register (1913), p. 291Google Scholar; Chicago mayoral election, 04 4, 1911Google Scholar. Chicago Daily News Almanac (1912) pp. 456—461; Chicago presidential returns, 1908; Chicago aldermanic election, 04 4, 1911Google Scholar. Chicago Daily News Almanac (1912) p. 469; New York City aldermanic election, 1909, New York Tribune Almanac, 1911 pp. 543–544Google Scholar; New York City mayoral election, 11 1913, 1914 p. 741Google Scholar; New York City presidential returns, 1908 (Manhattan and Bronx), New York City Record (Supplement) 31 December 1908 pp. 2–97; San Francisco mayoral election of 26 September 1911 (actually a primary, in which Rolph gained enough votes to win the mayoralty), San Francisco Municipal Reports vol. 1911–1912, p. 195; San Francisco presidential returns, San Francisco Municipal Reports vol. 1908–1909, pp. 1127–1130.

78. Lewis-Beck, M. S., Applied Regression: An Introduction (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.