Political Parties in America
Re: admin questions,
I need to see:
Taylor Sims
Jonathan Lin
For tomorrow . . .

www.3pc.net - party matchmaker
Madison’s Factions


“By a faction I understand a number of citizens,
whether amounting to a majority or minority of the
whole, who are united and actuated by some common
impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate
interests of the community.”
“Complaints are everywhere heard . . . That the public
good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties . . .”
What are “political parties”?

Remember: “political participation”
–
–
–

Influence government policy by
Affecting choice of government personnel and/or
Affecting choices made by those personnel
Parties
–
–
–
Organized groups
Affect choice of government personnel by fielding candidates
Affect choices made by those personnel by creating norms of
reciprocity and group identification
Three meanings of “parties”



Party organizations
Parties in government
Parties in the electorate
Parties as “linkage institutions”
Govt.
Officials
Party
Organization
Electorate
Party Myths
Myth 1: Parties are monolithic



Reality: Party membership is quite diverse
Example: 1850s, Republican party catered to
anti-slavery interests and commercial interests
(focus on transportation infrastructure, etc.)
Example: Modern Republican party draws
from socially conservative Christian population
and economically conservative business
interests
Myth 2: Parties are static



Reality: Parties vary over time, in terms of
issue positions and membership
Example: Democratic party dominated the
white south until the middle of the 20th century,
when civil rights issues drove white
southerners to the Republican party
Example: 19th century Democrats emphasized
states’ rights, limited federal spending, and
literal interpretation of Constitution
Origins of political parties


Madison’s fear of “factions”
BUT, we’ve had parties from the beginning –
why?
–
–
People naturally form groups (“The latent causes of
faction are thus sown in the nature of man . . . .”)
Parties are useful


To us
To elites
What Do Parties Do?
Parties as “linkage institutions”


Act as a bridge between electorate and “elites”
Provide benefits to both groups
Candidate Benefits From Party
Organizations


Campaign resources
Information
–
–


Issues
Electorate
Guidance
Money
Candidate/Leader Benefits From
“Parties in Government”





Signal of similarity
Group loyalty/trust
Shorthand for talking to voters
Voting on issues: cue
Issue support
What do we, the voters, get from
parties?
Benefits to Voters




Cue to candidate positions: “heuristics”
“Reliable” information about issues
Easy way to give money
Participation clearinghouse
What is “party identification”?




Individual voter’s psychological ties to one party (“I am
a __________”)
NOT the same as ideology
Formed early (often inherited from parents), rarely
changes in later life
“Strength” of party identification
–
–
–
Name only
Loyal voter
Party activists
Importance of party in the
electorate


Parties draw their strength from mobilization of voters
Shifts in electorate support (electoral realignment)
–
–

Identity of major parties
Issue focus of major parties
Decline in party identification (dealignment)
–
–
may reduce government efficiency
lead to “divided government”
In sum . . .



Parties and party labels provide information to
candidates, politicians, and voters
Not surprising, then, that parties have endured
What has changed?
–
–
Identities and positions of parties
Strength of parties
Party Strength and
America’s Two Party System
Parties as Linkage Institutions:
How Strong Is the Bond?
Govt.
Officials
Party
Organization
Electorate
Strong Parties

Have a lot of control over candidates and
officials claiming the party identity
–
–

steering their policy positions
fostering a sense of mutual obligation and unity
among the party in the government
Directly and powerfully involved in mobilizing
the electorate
Weak Parties

Candidates who ally themselves with the party
–
–

do not necessarily share any common policy
objectives or ideological values
do not necessarily feel a sense of obligation and
loyalty to one another
Political parties have very little influence over
the electorate
–
–
unable to mobilize voters
not able to get voters to vote down party lines
History of Party Strength

Late 1800s – Birth of “Political Machines”
–
–

Progressive Movement “Reforms”
–
–

Patronage
Emphasis on strength of party organizations
Literacy tests
Direct primary
Civil Service
–
Undermined patronage system
History of Party Strength



Mid 1900s – Decline of Party Organizations
Party in electorate and parties in government
still strong
Parties divided along “natural” social cleavages
History of Party Strength



Modern era – Parties relatively weak
Party organizations not as strong
Party loyalties in government and electorate slipping,
too
–

More split-ticket voting
BUT maybe rallying
–
–
Finding a new niche
Shifting emphasis from putting politicians and voters together,
to putting politicians and money together
Arguments for a weak party system



Graft and corruption
Censoring political agenda
Party loyalties may detract from the job of
representation
Arguments for a strong party
system



Better voter heuristic
Limit finger pointing => Group accountability
Longer-term view of politics
America’s Two-Party System
Overview


Why do we have a “two party system” in the
U.S.?
If they cannot win national offices, what roles
do third parties play in our system?
Why a two party system?

Sociological explanation
–
–
Parties reflect underlying social cleavages
Not satisfactory



Why don’t U.S. parties reflect various combinations of social
issues?
Why don’t U.S. parties reflect diverse economic and ethnic
interests?
Institutional explanation
–
–
Electoral laws determine how many parties can be viable
Social cleavages only lead to splintering of parties when
electoral laws are sufficiently permissive
Electoral laws: the geography of
voting

Single-member districts
–
–

Electorate is divided up so that each seat in
government is associated with a particular district
That district elects only one representative
Multiple-member districts
–
–
Electorate may or may not be divided into districts
Even if electorate is divided into districts, the
districts elect more than one representative
Single-Member Districts in
“Quadria”
1
1
1
1
Multiple-Member Districts in
“Quadria”
4 Reps
Electoral laws: three systems for
choosing winners in elections



Plurality system (also called “first past the
post”)
Run-off majority voting
Proportional representation
Multiple-Member District w/
Proportional Representation



Four representatives for district
Single election for parties
Example:
–
–
–
Greens win 50% of vote
Communists win 25% of vote
Socialists win 25% of vote
What we have in the U.S.


Single-member districts
Plurality elections (first past the post)
Duverger’s “Law”


Election systems that rely on single-member
districts and plurality (or first past the post)
voting systems favor a two party system
Why?
–
–
People are strategic
The real competition is between the top two
candidates, so voting for anyone else is a “waste”
Spatial Model of Duverger’s Law
ME
Green
Party
Dems
Reps
Duverger’s “Law”


Election systems that rely on single-member
districts and plurality (or first past the post)
voting systems favor a two party system
Election systems with multi-member districts
and proportional representation allow for
multiple parties to thrive
BUT


Some countries have single-member plurality
electoral systems but multiple parties (Canada,
India)
Some countries have multi-member districts
and proportional representation but very little
party competition (Australia, Austria)
Melding Sociological and
Institutional Explanations

Two party systems arise from either
–
–

Single-member plurality systems OR
Homogenous population (like Australia and Austria)
Multi-party systems arise under these circumstances:
–
–
–
When the electoral system is multiple-member/proportional
AND the populace is fragmented
When the two parties become too removed from the electorate
so people start voting in expressive ways
When the heterogeneity in electorate is geographically
defined, so you have a whole bunch of small two-party
systems (Canada)
Bottom Line


Social factors and election rules both matter
Given our social structure (social cleavages not
tied to geography) and our rules, U.S. tends to
have a two-party system
But people still vote for third
parties . . .

People who vote for third parties often “look
like” people who don’t vote at all
–
–


Alienation
Indifference
Except that third-party voters have stronger
sense of civic responsibility
Third party voting is expressive
What do third parties do?



Win local and state office
Force the major parties to move to capture the
lost votes
Get issues on the agenda through media
coverage and public awareness