para 1 - flvsglobalstudies.pbworks.comflvsglobalstudies.pbworks.com/f/Chapter9.docx · Web...

CHAPTER 9

Political Parties

OBJECTIVESThis chapter examines political parties, with an emphasis on the two-party system that has evolved in the United States. After reading and reviewing the material in this chapter, the student should be able to do each of the following:0

1. Define the term political party and contrast the structures of European and American parties, paying particular attention to the federal structure of the U.S. system and the concept of party identification.

2. Trace the development of the U.S. party system through its four periods. Explain why parties have been in decline since the New Deal.

3. Describe the structure of a major party. Distinguish major from minor parties.

4. Indicate whether there are major differences between the parties. Describe some of the issue differences between delegates at Democratic and Republican conventions, and compare their policy positions with those of rank-and-file party members.

OVERVIEWA political party exists in three arenas: among the voters who psychologically identify with it, as a grassroots organization staffed and led by activists, and as a group of elected officials who seek to act on its ideals. This chapter studies the party primarily as an organization that takes various forms at the local level. These include the political machine, the ideological party, the solidary group, the sponsored party, and the personal following.

National parties are weak coalitions of these local forums. As organizations that influence the political systems, parties are becoming even weaker. Voters no longer strongly identify with one of the major parties. The spread of the direct primary has made it harder for parties to control who is nominated for elective office, thus making it harder for the parties to influence the behavior of officeholders they once elected. Delegate selection rules, especially in the Democratic Party, have contributed to shifting the center of power away from officeholders and party regulars and toward the parties’ more ideological wings.

Minor parties have arisen from time to time, but the only ones that have affected the outcome of presidential elections have been those that began as splinter groups within one of the major parties. An example of such a party is the Bull Moose Progressives. The two-party system is maintained, and minor parties are discouraged, by an election system of winner-take-all, plurality elections. This arrangement makes voters fear that they will “waste” their vote if they vote for a minor party. Meanwhile, the primary system makes it possible for minor parties to wield influence through the major parties.

Chapter 9: Political Parties


CHAPTER OUTLINE WITH KEYED-IN RESOURCES0I. Parties—in the United States and abroad0

A. Decentralization01. A party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them

with a label (party identification) by which they are known to the electorate.2. Arenas of politics in which parties exist:0

a) Label in the minds of the votersb) Organization recruiting and campaigning for candidatesc) Set of leaders organizing and trying to control the legislative and executive

branches3. U.S. parties have become weaker in all three arenas.0

a) As label, because there are more independents and more split-ticket votingb) As set of leaders, though, parties are still somewhat strong.c) As organizations, parties have become weaker since 1960s

B. Reasons American and European parties are different01. European parties are disciplined gatekeepers, to which voters are very loyal, though

this has been declining recently.2. Federal system decentralizes power in United States.0

a) Early in U.S. history, the most important government decisions were made by the state and local governments, and this is where most of the political jobs were.

b) National parties in those times were coalitions of local parties.c) As political power became more centralized, parties became even more

decentralized and weaker.3. Parties closely regulated by state and federal laws, which weaken them4. Candidates are now chosen through primaries, not by party leaders.5. President elected separately from Congress, and presidential appointees are drawn

from many sources.II. The rise and decline of the political party0

A. The Founding (to 1820s)01. Founders disliked parties, viewing them as factions.2. For parties to be acceptable, people had to be able to distinguish between policy

disputes and challenges to the legitimacy of government.3. Emergence of Republicans, Federalists: Jefferson versus Hamilton0

a) Loose caucuses of political notablesb) Republicans’ success (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) and Federalists’ demisec) Reflection of the newness of parties is seen in the weakness of this system.

B. The Jacksonians (to Civil War)01. Political participation became a mass phenomenon0

a) More voters to be reached; by 1832, presidential electors selected by popular vote in most states

b) Party built from the bottom upc) Abandonment of presidential caucuses composed of congressional members

C. The Civil War and sectionalism (to 1930s)0


1. Jacksonian system unable to survive slavery and sectionalism.2. New Republicans became dominant because of:0

a) Civil War—Republicans relied on Union prideb) Bryan’s alienation of northern Democrats in 1896 deepened sectionalism

3. Most states were dominated by one party.0a) Factions emerged within each party.b) Republicans broke into professional politicians (Old Guard) and progressives

(mugwumps).c) Progressives initially shifted between parties to gain power, but then began

attacking partisanship when the Republicans became dominant.D. The era of reform (beginning in the 1900s, but chiefly since the New Deal)0

1. Progressives pushed measures to curtail parties’ power and influence.0a) Primary elections favored, to replace nominating conventionsb) Nonpartisan elections at city and (sometimes) state levelc) No party-business alliances, on the grounds that they were corruptingd) Strict voter registration requirements in order to reduce fraude) Civil service reform in order to eliminate patronagef) Initiative and referendum so that citizens could vote directly on proposed

legislation2. Effects0

a) Reduced the worst forms of political corruptionb) Weakened all political parties—parties became less able to hold officeholders

accountable or to coordinate across the branches of governmentE. Party realignments

1. Critical or realigning periods: periods when a sharp, lasting shift occurs in the popular coalition supporting one or both partiesa) Issues that separate the parties change, so the kinds of voters supporting each

party change.b) Shift may occur at the time of the election or just after.

2. Five realignments so far:a) 1800 (Jeffersonian Republicans defeated Federalists)b) 1828 (Jacksonian Democrats came to power)c) 1860 (Whig party collapsed; Republicans came to power)d) 1896 (Republicans defeated William Jennings Bryan)e) 1932 (Democrats came to office under FDR)

3. Two kinds of realignmentsa) A major party is defeated so badly that it disappears, and a new party emerges.b) Two existing parties continue, but voters shift their loyalty from one to another.

4. Clearest cases of realignment: 1860, 1896, 1932a) 1860: slavery issue fixed new loyalties in the popular mindb) 1896: economic issues shifted loyalties to East versus West, city versus farm splitc) 1932: economic depression triggered new coalition for Democrats

5. 1980: Not a new realignment


a) Reagan won in 1980—not because of what he stood for, but because he was not Jimmy Carter.

b) Could not have been a traditional realignment, because Congress was left in the hands of the Democrats.

6. Major shift in presidential voting patterns in the Southa) 1972–2004: South has been more Republican than nation as a wholeb) If continues, will constitute a major regional realignment

F. Party decline1. Evidence that parties are declining, not realigning.2. Proportion of people identifying with a party declined between 1960 and 1980.3. Proportion of those voting a split ticket increased.

a) Was almost unheard of in the nineteenth century, because voters were given ballots by the parties

b) Became more common with the adoption of the office-bloc ballot (listing candidates by office instead of party)

III. The national party structure today (THEME A: PARTY STRUCTURE TODAY)0A. Parties similar on paper

1. State and local party organizations enjoy a great deal of autonomy from the national party apparatus. They control the process of delegate selection to the national nominating conventions by using primaries to select delegates. In recent years, there has been a trend where states compete to have their primaries held at the beginning of the delegate-selection process. Earlier primaries force presidential candidates to pay particular attention to these states in order to develop momentum by winning earlier primaries. This has resulted in a front loading of the delegate-selection process that the national parties are helpless to control.02. National convention has ultimate power; meets every four years to nominate the

presidential candidate3. National committee is composed of delegates from states; manages affairs between

conventions4. Congressional campaign committees support the party’s congressional candidates.5. National chair manages daily work

B. Party structure diverged in late 1960s and early 1970s01. RNC moved to bureaucratic structure

a) Became a well-financed party devoted to electing its candidates, especially to Congress

b) Beginning in 1980s, RNC used computerized mailing lists to raise moneyc) Money was used to provide services to candidatesd) RNC effectively created a national firm of political consultants.

2. Democrats moved to factionalized structure and redistributed power.a) Democrats lost five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988.b) By the 1990s, DNC had learned from the RNC: adopted the same techniques,

with some success.3. DNC and RNC send money to state parties to sidestep federal spending limits (soft

money)


C. National conventions01. National committee sets time and place; issues a “call” setting the number of delegates

for each state and the rules for their selection2. Formulas are used to allocate delegates0

a) Democrats’ formula shifts delegates away from the South, to the North and Westb) Republicans’ formula shifts delegates away from the East, to the South and

Southwest.c) Result: Democrats move left, Republicans right

3. Democratic formula rewards large states, whereas Republican formula rewards loyal states.

4. Democrats set new rules0a) In 1970s, rules were changed to weaken local party leaders and increase the

proportions of women, youth, blacks, and Native Americans attending the convention; superdelegates

b) Hunt Commission in 1981 increased the influence of elected officials and made the convention more deliberative

5. Consequence of reforms: parties represent different sets of upper-middle-class voters0a) Republicans represent traditional middle class—more conservativeb) Democrats represent more leftist wing of the liberal middle class

6. To become more competitive, Democrats adopted additional rule changes:0a) In 1992, three rules were set:0

(1) Winner-reward system of delegate distribution banned—this had previously given the winner of primaries and caucuses extra delegates.

(2) Proportional representation implemented(3) States that violated the rules were penalized with the loss of convention

delegates.b) Delegates once selected by party leaders are now chosen by primaries or local caucuses.

7. Conventions today only ratify choices made in primary season.IV. State and local parties (THEME B: UNITED STATES PARTIES AS BROAD COALITIONS)0

A. State-level structure01. State central committee2. County committees3. Various local committees4. Distribution of power varies with the state, because different incentives are at work.

B. The machine01. Definition: a party organization that recruits members via tangible incentives (money,

jobs, political favors)2. High degree of leadership control over member activity3. Abuses were extensive0

a) Gradually controlled by reforms—voter registration, civil service, Hatch Act (1939)

b) Machines continued until voter demographics and federal programs changed, decreasing the need for the parties’ resources


4. Machines were both self-serving and public regarding5. New machine: uses money to knit together many politicians, though money comes

from campaign contributions, not from patronage and contractsa) New machines are a blend of the old machine (regarding campaign finance) and

today’s ideological party traits (regarding issues).b) Money once raised by patronage and contracts is now supplied by wealthy

contributors and funds raised through direct mail..C. Ideological parties—extreme opposite to machine0

1. Principle is more important than winning election, so ideological parties are contentious and factionalized.

2. Usually outside Democratic and Republican parties—“third parties”3. Currently are generally focused social movements, which advance specific demands4. Political machine was once the “farm club” of the national party, but today’s social

movements perform that function0a) Factionalism is therefore more intenseb) Party leaders have less freedom

D. Solidary groups01. Members are motivated by solidary incentives (enjoying the game; companionship)2. Advantage: neither corrupt nor inflexible3. Disadvantage: not very hard working

E. Sponsored parties01. Created or sustained by another organization2. Example: Detroit Democrats were developed and led by the United Auto Workers

(UAW) union3. Not very common in United States

F. Personal following01. Requires an appealing personality, an extensive network, name recognition, and money2. Examples: Kennedys (MA), Talmadges (GA), Longs (LA), Byrds (VA)

V. The two-party system0A. Rarity among nations todayB. Evenly balanced nationally, but not locallyC. Why has the U.S. two-party system endured for so long?0

1. Electoral system—winner-take-all and plurality system limit the number of parties2. Opinions of voters—two broad coalitions work, although there may be times of bitter

dissent3. State laws have made it very difficult for third parties to get on the ballot.

VI. Minor parties (“third parties”)0A. Ideological parties are not interested in immediate electoral success and thus persist despite

losses at the polls.B. Two types of parties have been successful in carrying states in presidential elections:

1. Economic protest parties, which form to protest economic conditions2. Factional parties, which form from a split in a major party


C. Surprising that more social movements (for example, the civil rights movement, antiwar movement) have not produced their own parties01. They have only a slim chance of success.2. The major parties accommodate the movements via direct primaries and national party

convention.D. Impact of minor parties on American politics hard to judge

1. Conventional wisdom holds that minor parties develop ideas that the major parties adopt.

2. Factional parties have had probably the greatest influence on public policy.0VII. Nominating a president0

A. Two contrary forces 1. Party’s desire to win the presidency motivates it to seek an appealing candidate.2. Desire to keep dissidents in party forces a compromise with more extreme views.

B. Are the delegates representative of the voters?01. Democratic delegates much more liberal2. Republican delegates much more conservative3. Outcome cannot be attributed solely to quota rules for delegate selection—women,

youth, minorities have greater diversity of opinions than do the delegatesC. Who votes in primaries? 0

1. Primaries now more numerous and more decisive0a) Stevenson (1952) and Humphrey (1968) won the presidential nomination without

entering any primariesb) By 1992: forty primaries and twenty caucuses (some states with both)

2. Turnout for primaries is low, yet studies find little evidence to suggest that primary voters have more extreme political views than rank-and-file party voters.

3. Caucus: meeting of party followers at which delegates are picked0a) Only the most dedicated partisans attendb) Often choose most ideological candidate: Jackson, Robertson in 1988

D. Who are the new delegates?01. Today’s delegates are issue-oriented activists2. Advantages of this new system:0

a) Increased opportunities for activists within the two major partiesb) Decreased probability that they will defect from the major parties

3. Disadvantage: these delegates may nominate presidential candidates unacceptable to voters or even to the party’s rank-and-file supporters

VIII. Parties versus voters0A. Democrats: since 1968, have won more congressional elections but had little success in

presidential contests01. Presidential candidates are out of step with average voters on social and taxation

issues.2. So are Democratic delegates to the nominating convention, and there is a connection

between the delegates’ and the candidate’s positions.B. Republicans had same problem with Goldwater (1964).


C. Rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans differ on many political issues, but the differences are usually small.01. Delegates from the two major parties differ widely on these same issues.2. Therefore, the candidate needs to share views with the average citizen or campaign on

issues where delegates and voters agree.3. Problems arise, though, because candidates competing in primaries must often play to

the ideological extremes to win delegate support.

IMPORTANT TERMScaucus A meeting of party members to select delegates backing one or

another primary candidate

congressional campaign committee

A party committee in Congress that provides funds to members and would-be members

critical or realignment period

Period when a major, lasting shift occurs in the popular coalition supporting one or both parties

ideological party A party that values principled stands on issues above all else

mugwumps (or progressives)

Republican party faction of the 1890s to the 1910s, composed of reformers who opposed patronage

national chairman Day-to-day party manager; elected by the national committee

national committee Delegates who run party affairs between national conventions

national convention A meeting of party delegates held every four years

office-bloc ballot A ballot listing all candidates of a given office under the name of that office; also called a “Massachusetts” ballot

party-column ballot A ballot listing all candidates of a given party together under the name of that party; also called an “Indiana” ballot

personal following The political support provided to a candidate on the basis of personal popularity and networks

plurality system An electoral system in which the winner is that person who gets the most votes, even if he or she does not receive a majority; used in almost all American elections

political machine A party organization that recruits members by dispensing patronage

political party A group that seeks to elect candidates to public office

solidary incentive The social rewards (sense of pleasure, status, or companionship) that lead people to join political organizations

split ticket Voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election


sponsored party A local or state political party that is largely supported by another organization in the community

straight ticket Voting for candidates who are all of the same party

superdelegate Party leader or elected official who becomes a delegate to the national convention without having to run in primaries or caucuses

two-party system An electoral system with two dominant parties that compete in national elections

WEB RESOURCESCommunist Party USA: www.cpusa.org

Constitution Party: www.constitutionparty.com

Democratic National Committee: www.democrats.org

Democratic Socialists of America: dsausa.org

Green Party of the United States: http://gp.org

Independent American Party: www.usaip.org

Libertarian National Committee: www.lp.org

Reform Party National Committee: www.reformparty.org

Republican National Committee: http://rnc.org

THEME A: PARTY STRUCTURE TODAY

Instructor ResourcesRobert E. DiClerico. Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

Samuel J. Eldersveld and Hanes Walton, Jr. Political Parties in American Society. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.

John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey, eds. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Politics. 5th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Paul Herrnson, Multiparty Politics in America: Prospects and Performance. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Marc J. Hetherington and William J. Keefe. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. 10th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.


David R. Mayhew. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking and Investigations, 1946–2002. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Sidney M. Milkis. Political Parties and Constitutional Government: Remaking American Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.

National Party Conventions, 1831–2004. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005.

Joel Paddock. State and National Parties and American Democracy. New York: P. Lang, 2005.

John F. Reynolds. The Demise of the American Convention System, 1880–1911. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Andrew J. Taylor. Elephant’s Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.

Jeff Taylor. Where Did the Party Go? William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006.

John Kenneth White. The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2003.

John Kenneth White and John C. Green, eds. The Politics of Ideas: Intellectual Challenges Facing the American Political Parties. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.

SummaryAlthough they are very similar on paper, the structure of the national Democratic party differs substantially from that of the Republican party in practice. The Democrats, torn by ideological conflicts, have evolved into a factional party emphasizing the mobilization and conciliation of party activists. The Republican party has become a bureaucratic party devoted to winning elections by focusing on raising money and providing consulting services to its candidates. The result is that the Democrats have selected presidential candidates with a decidedly liberal orientation, whereas Republicans have fielded more moderate nominees capable of attracting middle-class voters. Thus the numerical advantage of the Democratic party has been offset by the electoral appeal of Republican candidates.

These generalizations, however, apply to national—largely presidential—elections. The parity of the two parties breaks down at the state and local levels, where party strength varies by region. Moreover, the key organizational units of the party structure are located at the city, county, and state levels. The national parties are little more than an affiliation of these regional entities and lack any real control over them. Five distinct types of local party organizations have developed.0

1. The machine is a party organization that recruits its members with tangible incentives and is characterized by a high degree of leadership control over member activity. In their heyday, machines were dependent on federal patronage jobs (such as in the post office), kickbacks on contracts, payments extracted from officeholders, and funds raised from businessmen. With the influx of poor immigrants, the machine adopted a social welfare function. The abuses of the machine were curtailed through stricter voter registration laws, civil service reforms, competitive bidding laws, and the Hatch Act, which made it illegal for federal civil servants to take part in most political activities. More important, as increased income and sophistication made voters less dependent on what the machines could offer; so did the growth of the federal welfare system. It is


easy to scorn the machine as venal and self-serving; however, machines mobilized a very high level of participation. Furthermore, their interest in winning elections meant that machines supported popular candidates, regardless of ideology.

2. Ideological parties value principle above all else. Because of their unwillingness to compromise, ideological parties are typically third parties such as the Socialist, Prohibition, or Libertarian parties. However, some local organizations within the two major parties fit into this category. Ideological parties are marked by intense internal conflict over issues, and leaders have little room for maneuvering and bargaining.

3. Solidary groups are composed of people who find politics fun. Such groups have the advantage of being neither corrupt nor inflexible; however, often they will not work very hard.

4. Sponsored parties are created when some other organization provides money and workers for a local party. These instances are rare, the UAW’s role in the Detroit Democratic party being the best example.

5. Personal followings attracted by the personality of the candidate have become much more important as other forms of party organization have declined. Such a following can allow a candidate to be independent, but the politics of personality (as opposed to machine or ideological politics) deprives the average voter of any reasonable basis for judging most candidates.

The various types of local parties are all important. But increasingly, political activists who become nationally known enter that scene from interest groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Educational Association (NEA), and the AFL-CIO.

Despite the concentration of power at the local level, most Americans define the parties on the basis of their national identities. Yet an odd role reversal seems to be taking place, as each national party has begun to assimilate characteristics of the other. The electoral fortunes of the parties have much to do with this process. The string of presidential victories from 1980 through 1988 lulled Republicans into equating their success with the conservative ideology of Ronald Reagan. This assumption proved fatal in 1992. The genial personality of Reagan had concealed the rough edges of his conservative principles; voters were attracted more to the person than to the value system. In the 1984 election, for example, the pollster Louis Harris discovered that Americans preferred the position of the Democratic candidate, Walter Mondale, to that of Reagan on twelve of sixteen issues surveyed.

For both parties, the challenge is to find candidates who satisfy the ideological demands of the party delegates while also appealing to rank-and-file party members. Since party delegates usually are more ideological in their views, their expectations for candidates often conflict with the views held by the rest of the American electorate. Democrats, for example, have had difficulty in selecting winning presidential candidates in part because they choose candidates with views on social and taxation issues that are too extreme for mainstream voters. Republicans also select candidates that appeal to their delegates; however, in the general contests, they have typically fared better—capturing all but two of the presidential contests between 1968 and 2004—because their candidates hold views that appeal more to voters in the center.


Discussion Questions01. Consider the five types of local political party organizations that the text lists. What advantages

and disadvantages does each type have? Rank the five types according to whether they can:

Introduce needed political reforms

Successfully assemble enough power to govern effectively

Induce a broad cross-section of society to participate

Avoid corruption

Give the voters a reasonable choice of policy makers and policies

Allow the voters to hold politicians responsible for the success or failure of their policies

Rejuvenate the political process by allowing “outsiders” in

Are some types of parties more likely to be stronger and more electorally successful than others? Under what circumstances should each type of party, with its virtues and disadvantages, be established? Abolished?

2. The national political parties have little control over the behavior of their members or of the candidates representing them. For example, David Duke—a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan—entered the Louisiana legislature as a Republican despite radio broadcasts by President Reagan calling for his defeat. How is the political system hurt by the loose organization of political parties?

3. Over time, the influence of party delegates has caused each of the major parties to become more ideological, and thus more polarized from one another. A review of the party platforms, for example, reveals positional statements that would be considered extreme by mainstream Americans. Might this be the cause of declining party membership? Is there a way to keep the political parties from being overly influenced by these ideologues?

4. Do political parties have any incentives to offer to members to keep them interested and actively involved in local, state, and national affairs? Should they reintroduce a modified patronage system to reward active party members for their loyalty and commitment?

THEME B: UNITED STATES PARTIES AS BROAD COALITIONS

Instructor ResourcesJohn F. Bibbey and Sandy Maisel. Two Parties—or More? The American Party System. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003.

Earl Black and Merle Black. Divided America: The Ferocious Power Struggle in American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.

David Blevins. American Political Parties in the 21st Century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2006.


Stephen I. Frank and Steven C. Wagner. We Shocked the World! A Case Study of Jesse Ventura’s Election as Governor of Minnesota. New York: HBJ College Division, 1999.

Jo Freeman. A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

Gerald H. Gamm,. The Making of New Deal Democrats: Voting Behavior and Realignment in Boston, 1920–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.

Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. Multiparty Politics in America. 2nd ed. Lanhan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Armando Navarro. La Raza Unida Party: A Chicano Challenge to the U.S. Two-Party Dictatorship. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.

Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, eds. Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America’s Polarized Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.

Arthur C. Paulson. Electoral Realignment and the Outlook for American Democracy. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2007.

Ronald Rapoport and Walter J. Stone. Three’s a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.

Mildred A. Schwartz. Party Movements in the United States and Canada: Strategies of Persistence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Barbara Sinclair. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006.

Jeffrey M. Stonecash. Political Parties Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisan Voting. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006.

SummaryIt is remarkable that America have had only two major parties for most of its history; most European democracies are multiparty systems. Two factors account for this. First, U.S. elections are based on the plurality, winner-take-all system. Therefore, a vote for a minor party is often perceived as a wasted vote. Under a system of proportional representation, which is common in Europe, even very small parties have a chance of winning something and therefore have an incentive to organize. Second, in spite of occasionally bitter dissent, Americans have not faced divisive and long-standing controversies over the organization of the economy, the prerogatives of the government, and the role of the church. They have agreed on enough issues to make broad coalitions possible. Finally, state laws make it exceedingly difficult for third parties to get on the ballot, as third-party candidates George Wallace and John Anderson quickly discovered in 1968 and 1980, respectively. Matters were only somewhat better for Ross Perot in 1992.

Third parties continue to form, however. They are typically one of four types: ideological parties, such as the Socialist, Communist, and Libertarian parties; one-issue parties, such as the Free Soil or


Prohibition parties; economic protest parties, such as the Greenback and Populist parties; and factional parties, such as the Progressive Party in 1924 and the American Independent Party in 1968. Of these, factional parties probably have had the greatest influence on public policy. This is due to the impact of a factional split on the unity of a major political party and the subsequent possibility of an electoral defeat.

Discussion Questions01. Democratic politics always requires a majority coalition to win. In the United States, the coalition

is formed before an election, in the makeup of political parties. In European multiparty systems, the coalition is formed after the election, when a political leader bargains for the support of other parties to form a voting coalition of a majority of seats in parliament. What difference might it make whether the coalition is together before or after the election? Which system allows the most meaningful elections? Which allows citizens to express their attitudes best in the polling booth? Which most effectively allows citizens to hold politicians accountable for what they do?

2. Why do some voters believe that it is illogical to vote for a party other than one of the two major ones? What did former Democrats gain when they voted for the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000? What did voters gain when they defected from both major parties and supported Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996?

3. In 1998, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota, having run on the Reform Party ticket. Ventura was a former professional wrestler, actor, and radio talk show host; he served as mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota’s sixth largest city, from 1991 to 1995. At the time of his election, it was thought that the Reform Party, founded in 1995 by Ross Perot, might have an opportunity to challenge the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties at the state and local levels. However, in 2000, in the middle of his gubernatorial term, Ventura left the Reform Party over partisan differences and joined the Independence Party of Minnesota. Does this historical example suggest that minor parties can be successful in electoral politics? Or does it highlight the difficulties that candidates face when they stray from major party organizations?

Abstract for Theme B

The Two-Party System and the Electoral CollegeThe existence of the American two-party system is linked to the winner-take-all character of the electoral system. Unlike many European nations, the United States does not have a proportional representation system (which encourages multiparty systems) but rather a single-member district system, whereby only one candidate can win the public office being contested. Given the additional middle-class/centrist nature of the United States electorate, preferring candidates from either one of the two major political parties becomes a natural choice for most voters.

These effects have been a source of concern for some political scientists, most notably Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce. These scholars described the Electoral College as a “fatally flawed means of determining the American president” that “has the potential for . . . deeply eroding the security of our democratic processes.” In The Electoral College Primer 2000 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), they list the following deficiencies of this institution:0


1. It is a distorted counting device. Its winner-take-all mechanism exaggerates electoral margins. Additionally, the two additional electoral votes, which correspond to the number of senators in each state, further distort the states’ Electoral College representation. Less populated states are overrepresented. In addition, the allocation of electoral votes ignores differences in voter turnout among the states.

2. Candidates’ campaign strategies are shaped by these distortions, which consequently affect policy decision making and implementation. In particular, the concerns of the large, swing states receive more careful consideration. Concerns distinctive to the smaller states are more likely to be ignored. When this analysis is conducted at the more precise regional level, the Electoral College is shown to advantage urban voters.

3. The Electoral College generally discriminates against candidates from third parties and preserves the dominance of the two major parties. Although regionally based third parties may hope to carry some states, third-party candidates with more broad-based appeal are sharply disadvantaged. In a three-way race (as in 1992 and 1996), the candidate receiving a mere plurality of a state’s popular vote will still be awarded all that state’s electoral votes.

4. Faithless electors may further distort the popular will—particularly in the event of a close election.

5. The structure of the Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the election even though he may have received fewer popular votes. This divided outcome was seen most notably in the contentious 2000 presidential contest between the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and the Republican candidate, George W. Bush.

Of course, the authors of the Constitution would be surprised, first by the current functioning of the Electoral College, and second, by a desire to place such great reliance on the popular will. As originally designed, the Electoral College was intended to mediate the popular will, ensuring that the people’s passions did not lead to the selection of a corrupt national leader. The notion that this institution should either merely reflect (if exaggerate) the popular vote—as is currently and most frequently the case—or be abolished in favor of electing the president by a national popular vote is therefore a contradiction and even a perversion of the Federalists’ expectations for their democratic republic.

Discussion Questions01. Review each of the above critiques, noting that these points can be transformed into support for

the Electoral College. For example, the fact that the Electoral College discriminates against third-party candidates has been viewed by some as integral to sustaining a moderate, two-party electoral system. What other benefits can be found amongst the critiques? Ultimately, does the Electoral College provide the United States with more benefits than costs?

2. Does the Electoral College exaggerate the partisan differences between the Democrats and Republicans? How do the red-versus-blue Electoral College maps oversimplify election outcomes? How might the winner-take-all system affect Republican participation in California, which is predominantly Democratic, or Democratic participation in Utah, which is predominantly Republican? Would dividing Electoral College votes along congressional district lines instead of whole states improve voter participation?


3. Which is more important in establishing legitimacy: a victory in the Electoral College or a victory in the popular vote? Would a close election in the popular vote be more or less problematic than a close election in the Electoral College?

para 1 - flvsglobalstudies.pbworks.comflvsglobalstudies.pbworks.com/f/Chapter9.docx · Web...

Documents

Transcript of para 1 - flvsglobalstudies.pbworks.comflvsglobalstudies.pbworks.com/f/Chapter9.docx · Web...