Partisan Sorting

Sorting vs. polarization

Polarization means the center shrinks and opinion spreads toward the extremes; sorting means that even with an unchanged distribution, people who share views cluster in the same party. Fiorina and Abrams (2008) argued that the American public's opinion distribution had not become much more extreme and that voters had instead sorted into ideologically matching parties. Abramowitz and Saunders (2008) countered that mass polarization had also occurred, especially among the politically engaged.

Causes: elite cues

Hetherington (2001) found that as party elites polarized and party differences became clearer, mass partisanship strengthened again. Levendusky (2009) explained that clear party cues from elites led voters either to choose parties matching their ideology or to adjust positions to fit their party. In experiments, Levendusky (2010) showed that clearer elite cues make voters' positions more consistent. Layman and Carsey (2002) reported conflict extension, with sorting occurring simultaneously across economic, racial and cultural issues.

Social sorting and affective consequences

Mason (2015, 2016) showed that sorting extended beyond ideology so that social identities such as race, religion and region overlap with party. When identities cross-cut, people shared something with supporters of the other party; when identities stack in one direction, they come to dislike the other side more. As a result, affective polarization can grow even without large issue differences. This connects to research on negative partisanship.

FAQ

What is partisan sorting in simple terms?

Liberals increasingly gather in the liberal party and conservatives in the conservative party, so the groups divide more neatly.

Is it the same as polarization?

No. Polarization means opinions themselves move to extremes; sorting means alignment with party rises even if the opinion distribution stays the same.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631. Elite polarization revived mass partisanship.
2. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and "conflict extension" in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802. Conflict extension across issue domains.
3. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588. Sorting, not polarization, argument.
4. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. Rebuttal: polarization is real.
5. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press. The key book on partisan sorting.
6. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131. Clear elite cues produce sorting.
7. Mason, L. (2015). "I disrespectfully agree": The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. Sorting drives social more than issue polarization.
8. Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–377. Social sorting and affective polarization.