Intro to Am Pol - Lecture 11 (Political Parties)

What are political parties?

Organized groups that have core aims of attaining:

1. Political power

2. Control over government policy

3. Public office for its designated leaders

What are the three theories about political parties?

1. Top-down understanding

2. Mezzo-level understanding

3. Bottom-up understanding

Top-down understanding

• Politicians

• Alliance of election-minded politicians

• They make promises about what they will do if elected

  • If elected —> they seek to implement those promises so they will be re-elected

Mezzo-level understanding

• Interest Groups/Lobbyists

• Alliance/network of “intense policy demanders” (interest groups + activists)

• They develop common agendas + screen candidates based on their loyalty to the demanders’ shared agenda

Bottom-up understanding

• General Public/Activists

• Stable bloc of voters with shared identity

• They select candidates to represent them on the basis of their policies, ideology, and values

Where are parties?

• Party in government

  • Alliance of officeholders cooperating to shape public policy

• Party as organization

  • Alliance of interest groups + activists dedicated to electing party candidates

• Party in the electorate

  • Voters who identify w/ the party and regularly vote for its candidates

Why are parties so essential to Democracy?

1. Size + complexity  of Congress makes legislating hard, absent durable coalitions

2. Separation of Powers means you need to sustain majority alliances across the branches

3. Federated system makes coherent policymaking difficult across local, state, and federal gov’s

4. “Popular” government needs stable mass electorates need to incentivize individuals to vote

   • Parties provide people with an outlet for self-expression (mobilizing work) ← Good

   • Parties also cause more polarization ← Bad

What are the theories for the Two-Party Stasis in the United States?

1. Dualism

   • Government v. Opposition

2. Path Dependence

   • Two parties started out at the Founding

     • They control the rules of the game

       • This makes it hard for third parties to compete

3. Party Strategy

   • Major parties copy 3rd party ideas (Party agendas aren’t that tight/static)

   • American parties are decentralized → easier to change from inside

4. Electoral Institutions

   • Duverger’s Law

What is Duverger’s Law? (or “guideline”)

• Single member districts + first past-the-post voting

  • Encourage two-party competition

  • Minor parties may exist, but are unlikely to gain formal representation

• Proportional representation (Seat share allocated proportional to vote share)

  • Votes cast for smaller parties aren’t wasted

How does William Riker amend Duverger’s Law?

• Asserts that the presence of regional parties may yield multiple parties’ representation in the national government, even under conditions of single-member districts/first-past-the-post voting

  • Example: Southern Dixiecrats (1950s/60s) + Progressive Party (1910s/20s)

Parties in Flux: The Era of Local Notables (1789 - 1830)

• Federalists (Hamilton) v. Democratic Republicans (Madison + Jefferson)

• Parties evolved from rivalries within towns/cities

  • Not a lot of policy coherence (very provincial!)

• Ties were limited b/t co-partisan organizations in other areas, and little overlap in ideology/policy commitments

Parties in Flux: The “Golden Age” (1830 - 1880)

• Strong, hierarchically structured party organizations (machines) fueled by spoils system 

  • Party bosses dictate policy commitments, oversee campaigns, and voting

• Machines often associated w/ corruption

• But, record high turnout among voters → “a golden age” for participatory democracy

  • Why?

    • B/c party machines were creating ways for folks to vote

      • 1839 → handwritten ballots

        • Limited voting pool b/c people had to be literate and cognizant of candidates that were running

      • 1880 → color-based ballots

        • Unified central control of government consistency

        • Low point for the separation of powers

        • High point for government efficiency

Parties in Flux": Progressive Reform (1880 - 1930)

• Progressive Republicans + Populist Democrats challenge the corruption of local party machines

• Working in parallel, they implement reforms to weaken the national party organizations

  • Civil service reform (Pendleton Act of 1883)

  • Primary election reform (rise of direct primaries, direct election of senators)

  • Australian (secret) ballot

    • Direct contrast to 1880 colored ballots

Parties in Flux: Realignment (1930 - 1980)

• FDR’s New Deal → Democratic Party operates as “big tent” of northern liberals, ethnic minorities, and southern racial conservatives

• Democratic coalition frays as pressure to pass civil rights mounts

  • White southerners start to support Republican candidates

    • Previously they were Dems b/c they did not support Lincoln’s (Rep) emancipation of slavery

  • Northern liberal Republicans started voting Democratic

• Both parties pursue internal reforms (Dems mandate primary elections, no longer “smoke-filled rooms”)

What are the two causes for polarization?

1. Bigger gap b/t two parties in terms of interest

   • Dems have different interests than Reps

2. More common interests w/in parties

   • Most conservative Dem v. Most liberal Dem are actually not all that different

Why might Congress appear to be polarizing?

1. Replacement

2. Ideological sorting in the electorate

3. Redistricting/Gerrymandering (House only b/c does not apply to Senate)

4. Procedural changes in Congress

5. Campaign donations

What is the ideology behind polarization in the Electorate?

• Over the past decades, we can observe growing party coherence or “issue constraint” in the electorate

  • “like goes with like” → less variation within and between issues)

• Respondents who identify w/ “liberal” → more likely to identify as Democrats

• Respondents who identify w/ “conservative” → more likely to identify as Republicans

What is the correlation between significant differences in polarization and political engagement?

We can observe significant differences in polarization across levels of reported political engagement

• Low-engagement voters are less likely to participate

• High-engagement voters are more likely to participate

Polarization in the Electorate: Emotional (Affective)

• In addition to significant ideological polarization, there is also a major shift in what partisans feel about their “partisan enemies”

• Even if respondents don’t feel all that much closer to their own party, they feel very distant from the other party b/c:

  • Parties are better sorted, fewer cross-cutting social identities

  • Ideological coherence breeds enmity (active hostility/animosity/antagonism)

  • Partisan news = a mechanism or just a matter of taste?