Page-by-Page Notes: Political Parties (Pages 1–6)
Page 1: 9-1 What Is a Party?
Key ideas at a glance
The ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties shape policy debates and, as linkage institutions, parties influence both the electorate and the government.
A political party is a broad organizing concept that connects candidates, voters, and governing actions.
Core definitions and framework
Political party: A group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them with a label—a party identification—by which they are known to the electorate.
This definition is purposefully broad to include both familiar parties (Democratic, Republican) and less familiar ones (Whig, Libertarian, Socialist Workers).
Parties are understood as existing in three parts:
1) An organization that recruits and campaigns for candidates, provides money/workers, and leads campaign activities.
2) A label in the minds of voters that shapes how they evaluate leaders and vote.
3) A set of leaders who try to organize and control the legislative and executive branches of government.
Functions of parties (three-part model):
They help candidates get elected (nominate and recruit candidates; raise money; run polls/focus groups; develop advertisements).
They exist in the heads of voters (party identification influences evaluation of leaders and voting behavior).
They coordinate behavior among elite politicians in office (e.g., majority party in the House/Senate organizes the chamber; coordination with the president on the legislative agenda).
What makes a party powerful?
A powerful party has a label with broad appeal, a strong, centralized organization that can decide who runs and how campaigns are run, and leaders who can dominate government.
In the 19th century, parties reached a peak in loyalty, organization, and control of nominations. In the 20th century, they weakened, then gradually regained some strength in recent decades.
Parties at home and abroad: why the U.S. is different
American parties tend to be weaker than parties in parliamentary democracies for several reasons:
Access to the ballot is not controlled by party leaders in the U.S. (most states use primaries where voters choose among candidates; in many European systems, leaders must persuade party peers to place a candidate on the ballot).
In parliamentary systems, the party that wins the legislature often also forms the government; in the U.S., the president is separately elected, so party control over the executive is not guaranteed.
The federal system decentralizes political authority, distributing jobs and money to local sources; national parties become coalitions of local parties rather than a unified national machine.
The combination of: (i) ballot-access decentralization, (ii) nonunified executive/legislative power, and (iii) federalism, helps explain why American parties are weaker on average than those in other democracies.
Historical note: The Framers and the hostility to parties
The Framers opposed political parties; George Washington warned in his Farewell Address about the dangers of the spirit of party and faction.
Despite this distrust, American parties emerged and have persisted for over 200 years.
Summary takeaways
Parties are enduring, fundamental features of American politics, even though their power and form have changed over time.
They function as organizations that recruit and nominate candidates, shape voters’ perceptions, and coordinate legislative-executive action, while differing in strength and influence from country to country.
Key terms to remember
party identification: A voter’s long-term attachment to a party.
linkage institution: An entity (like a party) that connects the electorate to the government.
division of power: The separate election of the presidency and Congress, which shapes how parties organize.
Examples and context
The Democratic and Republican parties generally align with liberal and conservative ideologies, respectively, and adjust messaging to appeal to diverse demographic coalitions.
The phrase “two-party system” describes a political environment where two major parties dominate most national elections; third parties exist but rarely win major offices.
Ethical and practical implications
The enduring power of parties raises questions about the balance between party competition and governance. Strong parties can clarify policy choices for voters, but they can also contribute to polarization and gridlock when ideologies become very distinct.
Numerical/detailed notes
Voter party loyalty (as of 2016): about 28% self-identified as Republicans, 40% as Independents, and 29% as Democrats (stable compared to 12 years earlier).
Party loyalty in presidential elections: over 90% of voters tend to support their party’s presidential nominee (e.g., Democrats vote Democratic, Republicans vote Republican).
Page 2: 9-2 The Rise and Decline of the Political Party
Five broad periods of party history
1) The Founding to the 1820s: Creation of parties; Jeffersonian Republicans vs Federalists; parties started as loose local caucuses; Washington-era distrust persisted; Jefferson’s conciliatory inaugural address echoed the need for a government serving all people. The Federalists faded after Jefferson’s dominance.
2) The Jacksonian era (roughly 1824–Civil War): Emergence of mass political participation; growth of voter rolls from ~365,000 in 1824 to >1,000,000 in 1828 and >2,000,000 by 1840. Presidential electors were chosen by popular vote in most states by 1832. The party system shifted from top-down caucuses to bottom-up conventions; first party convention in 1831 (Anti-Masonic Party) and major party conventions in 1832 (anti-Jackson Republicans).
3) The Civil War and Sectionalism: The old party system could not survive the slavery divide; Republicans emerged as a major party (the Civil War era cemented party loyalties). The Civil War polarized loyalties; the Republican Party gained dominance for three quarters of a century.
4) The Era of Reform (late 19th to early 20th century): Progressive reforms aimed to curb machine politics and patronage. Key reforms included primaries replacing conventions, nonpartisan elections in some cities/states, civil service reform, and expanded use of mass media to criticize partisan abuses. Notable state reforms included California (direct primary, initiative, referendum) and Wisconsin (La Follette).
5) Polarization and resurgence (late 1960s to today): Civil rights fights, desegregation, and expansion of issue-based activism reshaped party coalitions; party machines waned but modern parties grew stronger through fundraising and issue-driven activism. The rise of activists and issue-based “litmus tests” shifted internal dynamics toward polarization, even as party labels and core identities remained.
Key realignments (five major realignments)
1800: Jeffersonian Republicans defeated the Federalists; the two-party system began to take shape with new coalition bases.
1828: Jacksonian Democrats rose to power; enfranchisement expanded; mass political participation.
1860: Whigs collapsed; Republicans formed and Lincoln led them to victory; Civil War era defined new party coalitions.
1896: Republicans defeated William Jennings Bryan; the Northern states leaned Republican, the South remained Democratic; a major realignment of regional coalitions occurred.
1932: Democrats under Roosevelt came into office; New Deal coalition reshaped partisan loyalties for decades.
Two kinds of realignment
Party disappearance and emergence (e.g., Federalists in 1800; Whigs in 1856–1860).
Persistent two-party domination with shifting coalitions (e.g., 1896 and 1932 realignments).
Modern discussion of realignments
Some scholars argue there are not single, clean realigning elections today; instead, realignments may occur gradually and across multiple issues (abortion, gay rights, taxes, size of government, immigration).
Learning objectives (9-2)
Describe the historical evolution of the party system in America.
Summarize the rise and decline of political parties across five periods.
Explain how reforms shifted party power (primaries, direct democracy, civil service reform).
Explain the concept of realignments and identify the five major historical realignments.
Discuss polarization and the role of activists in shaping modern party competition.
Key examples and evidence
The 2016 party platforms highlighted stark ideological differences, e.g., climate change, abortion, health care, immigration, financial regulation, and same-sex marriage.
The Tea Party movement, as a form of grassroots activism, influenced the Republican Party’s direction in the 2010s without forming a single national party.
Important quotes and context
The “Spirit of Party” quote by Hofstadter reflects historical concerns about party dangers (aligned with Washington’s caution).
Civil rights era reforms helped realign the South and contribute to the modern two-party divide.
Notes on data and visuals
Figure 9.1 (Cleavages and Continuity in the Two-Party System): graphical depiction of factional divides and continuity.
Figure 9.2 (Voter Partisanship, 1952–2016): shows trends in Democrat, Republican, and Independent identification; important numbers include the decline of the solid Democratic advantage in the 1950s and the persistence of relatively small Independent shares (roughly around 10–20% historically).
Table 9.11 (Party Platform Differences, 2016): demonstrates differences in party policy emphases on issues like climate change, abortion, health care, immigration, and financial reform.
Connections to foundational principles
The evolution of party systems ties to federalism, constitutional structure, and the design of elections (plurality and single-member districts) that shape how coalitions form and sustain themselves.
Ethical and practical implications
Realignments and reforms can reduce perceived corruption but also reduce the direct power of party elites, shifting influence toward activists and issue-based movements.
The balance between strong parties (clarity of policy choices) and the risk of gridlock is a continuing policy challenge.
Numerical notes
Vote totals: by 1828, well over 1 million votes; by 1840, well over 2 million votes (compared to ~365,000 in 1824).
1860: Lincoln won with a coalition that solidified Republican strength nationally.
2016 platform differences reflect deep ideological divides; specifics include climate change; abortions; health care; immigration; financial regulation; same-sex marriage.
Page 3: 9-3 The Functions of Political Parties
Overview: What parties do to win and govern
Parties exist to help elect candidates and then to organize government once in office.
They accomplish this by recruiting candidates, nominating them, and supporting them in elections through resources and signals.
Recruiting candidates
Parties seek out potential candidates and recruit them to run for office; their recruitment decisions affect policy after elections.
Effective candidate recruitment matters beyond victory; it shapes the policy field.
Case study: Rahm Emanuel (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair, pre-2006) recruited Iraq War veterans to run in 2006 to leverage credibility on national security against Republicans. This targeted recruitment shaped subsequent elections.
Strategic recruiting also influenced outcomes in 2010 (poor-quality candidates hurt Republicans in some races) and 2014 (better candidates helped the GOP win the Senate).
Primary context: Recruiting must navigate primary environments; the type of primary (open vs closed) interacts with candidate selection and message.
Nomination process
Historically through caucuses and conventions; now largely via primaries.
Types of primaries:
Closed primary: Only registered party members may vote for the party’s nominee; Independent voters typically cannot vote in a closed primary.
Open primary: Voters can vote in either party’s primary, regardless of registration; however, one cannot vote in more than one party’s primary in a given election.
Consequences of primary types:
Closed primaries tend to strengthen parties and give party leaders more information about who will be receptive to their messages.
Open or top-two primaries are thought by reformers to favor moderates, though empirical evidence is inconclusive about polarization outcomes.
The national parties also influence nominations via fundraising, organization, and digital campaigns, not just through state primaries.
The distinction between open/closed primaries is linked to broader party strength and the ability to mobilize voters.
Convention-based nominations and delegates
The nomination for president usually occurs at national conventions called by the party.
Delegates exist in two main forms:
Pledged delegates: Awarded through primaries and caucuses; pledged to vote for a particular candidate at the convention.
Unpledged delegates (super-delegates): Party leaders and elected officials who are not bound to a specific candidate; they can choose whom to support.
Allocation rules differ by party:
Democrats: Proportional representation with some states using hybrids.
Republicans: A mix of proportional representation and winner-take-all.
Role of super-delegates: They are especially crucial when pledged delegates are near-tie; e.g., Obama-Clinton 2008 and Clinton-Sanders 2016, where super-delegates helped clinch the nomination.
Invisible primary: The process by which candidates try to attract key party leaders’ support before the primary season begins; elites tilt resources to favored candidates (fundraising, staff, endorsements).
Historical shift: Reforms in the 1960s–1980s weakened party bosses’ direct control but empowered activists and elites to influence outcomes through delegates and money.
Tension in nomination: Party leaders may want a candidate who can win in November and satisfy activist demands for purer positions; this push-pull shapes nomination dynamics.
Reforms and their consequences
The reforms aimed to democratize the nomination process also empowered activists who are often more ideologically polarized.
The reliance on activists can push candidates toward the extremes, complicating the ability of party leaders to nominate broadly palatable candidates.
Despite reforms, elites still seek to influence the process (e.g., via super-delegates or other institutional tools), but ultimate decision power remains with voters and delegates.
How nominations are funded and organized
After recruitment and nomination, parties continue to support candidates through:
Providing a party label, which helps voters identify the candidate with the party.
Ground campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts to mobilize supporters.
Access to polling, lists of supporters, and campaign staff.
Fundraising: The signal effect of a party donation to a candidate can influence other donors’ willingness to contribute.
The national parties’ fundraising has grown; in the 2016 cycle, candidates raised about $1.54B, while the parties raised about $1.63B.
Parties as organizations: structure and roles
National party: Main responsibility is to call the national party convention and manage media representation and fundraising.
National committee: Oversees between conventions and includes delegates from each state/territory; selects the national chair who runs day-to-day operations.
State committees: State party organizations with a central committee and further subdivisions (county, district, precinct) that fund and coordinate campaigns.
Local parties: Vary greatly by locality, historically moving from machines to more issue-based coalitions; modern local parties rely on activists and policy advocates rather than patronage.
Congressional campaigns: Each party has a Congressional Campaign Committee to support incumbents and challengers.
Money and power in the modern party system
Money plays a central role; donors signal quality of candidates and provide resources.
The text highlights that while direct donations to candidates are legally capped, party fundraising can influence momentum and resource allocation across campaigns.
The Hatch Act (1939) restricted federal employees from participating in campaign management, which gradually diminished the role of machines and patronage in federal politics; local and state dynamics continued to evolve.
State and local parties in the modern era
The classic political machine model (e.g., Tammany Hall) has largely faded by the mid-1980s, but remnants persisted in some places (e.g., Cook County in Chicago).
Today’s parties are dominated by policy activists rather than machine bosses. Litmus tests reflect activists’ influence; social movements (civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, LGBTQ rights, etc.) increasingly supply candidates and agendas.
Barbara Mikulski and others note that social movements have become a major source of candidates and a key driver of party strategy.
Key terms to remember
national convention, national committee, national chair
pledged delegates vs unpledged delegates (super-delegates)
invisible primary
closed primary vs open primary vs top-two primary
How party organization affects governance
Parties exist at multiple levels (national, state, local) with varying degrees of independence; they coordinate on some core tasks but are not a strict top-down corporation.
The current party system blends elite coordination, activist input, and broad voter mobilization to shape both elections and governance.
Page 4: 9-4 Parties as Organizations
Organizational structure: federalized but interconnected
National parties vs state and local parties:
National party: Focuses on national convention, media presence, fundraising, and coordinating national campaigns.
State parties: Local and state-level coordination with varying degrees of strength; often depend on fundraising to build infrastructure.
Local parties: County and precinct-level organizations; historically the nucleus of party activity; increasingly influenced by issue-based advocacy rather than patronage.
Independence across levels: The levels operate independently to a degree but coordinate on major campaigns and resources; there is no strict hierarchical pipeline from top to bottom.
The party’s core financial and organizational machinery
Money: The modern parties raise substantial funds and distribute resources to state/local parties; donors and interest groups participate in the broader fundraising ecosystem.
National conventions and committees: The convention is where the presidential ticket is formally chosen; the national committee manages ongoing party affairs between conventions.
For Congress, each party has a Congressional Campaign Committee to support incumbents and open-seat challengers; these entities help allocate resources and plan campaigns.
The national chair directs day-to-day operations and helps steer the party's strategic direction.
State and local party structures
State parties: Each state has a Democratic and Republican party with a central committee and various subcommittees (county, city, precinct).
Methods of selection: State parties select members via primaries, conventions, or building-block processes where precinct/city members choose county and state committee members.
Local parties: Vary widely; some still rely on activist coalitions focused on specific issues or social movements; others maintain a more traditional political machine flavor in certain places.
Historical evolution: machines to activism
The era of political machines (late 19th to early 20th centuries) used patronage to recruit and mobilize voters; they controlled jobs and contracts and helped immigrant communities access political power.
Reforms (voter registration, civil service, competitive bidding) reduced patronage and corruption but also weakened machine-style party control.
The Hatch Act restricted federal employees from political activities, pushing power away from national-level patronage and toward different organizational strategies.
The rise of issue-driven activism
Modern parties are increasingly defined by policy advocates and activists rather than party bosses. Activists demand a “litmus test” on core issues, shaping candidate selection and party agendas.
The decline of machines did not eliminate party influence; fundraising and organizational capacity at the national level have enabled state and local parties to remain influential.
Party functions summarized
National conventions: Nominate presidential candidates; meet every four years.
National committees: Manage affairs between conventions; oversee fundraising and strategy.
State committees: Fund campaigns; coordinate with local committees; manage state-level electoral activities.
Local committees: Ground-level mobilization; direct voter outreach; local governance ties.
The party system remains a distribution network of money, organization, and media presence across at least three layers (national, state, local).
Key terms to remember
party organization vs party machine
Hatch Act
litmus test (within activist-driven parties)
Page 5: 9-5 Parties in the Electorate: Partisanship
Definition and significance
Partisanship (also called partisan identification) is a stable, long-term attachment to a political party (the “team” to which a voter belongs).
This attachment shapes opinions, perceptions, and vote choices; partisanship is a strong predictor of voting behavior across offices, not just in presidential elections.
How partisanship forms and evolves
Three primary influences:
1) Parents’ partisanship strongly conditions children’s early political leanings.
2) The political environment during a person’s formative years (the era they come of age) shapes future loyalties.
3) Over time, partisan identities can shift in response to major events (economic crises, terrorism, wars, etc.).Partisanship is remarkably stable but not immutable; major events can shift coalitions.
Trends in party identification and independents
In the 1950s, Democrats held a substantial advantage (~60% D vs ~40% R).
Over time, the Democratic advantage declined as coalitions shifted, reducing the gap to a few percentage points.
Independents have comprised a sizable share of the electorate, but many “Independent” identifiers lean toward one party or the other when asked about leanings.
Example (ANES 2012): 44% initially identified as Independents; follow-up indicated 16% leaned to Democrats, 18% to Republicans, and 10% to neither; overall, most independents lean toward a party.
Because leaners act like partisans in voting behavior, many researchers group leaners with partisan identifiers for analysis.
Partisanship as a predictor of vote choice
Since the 1990s, party loyalty in presidential voting has stabilized around roughly 90%: about 90% of Democrats vote for the Democratic nominee and about 90% of Republicans vote for the Republican nominee.
Other factors (economic conditions, issue salience) also influence vote choice, but partisanship remains the strongest predictor.
Partisanship and perception of the political world
Partisan bias influences how voters interpret economic indicators and national conditions.
Example: In the late 1980s, Republicans tended to view the economy as improving more than Democrats did, even when data showed favorable trends; after 2016, attitudes shifted with the party of the president in power.
This partisan bias extends to perceptions of government performance, with supporters more trusting when their party is in power.
Partisanship and information processing
Partisans interpret facts through a lens aligned with their party; this is not a sign of stupidity but a product of motivated reasoning and identity.
As discussed, partisanship colors judgments about economic data, crime, deficits, and policy outcomes, influencing trust and support for government actions.
Independent voters and leaners
Independent voters are a sizable share, but many lean toward a party and behave accordingly.
The label “Independent” often signals moderacy; however, behaviorally many independents are not truly centrist and align with one party consistently.
Key terms to remember
partisanship, partisan identification, Independent leaners
polarization (as a broader trend in party behavior and political discourse)
Page 5 (continued): 9-5 Partisanship in Action
Partisanship and government evaluation
Partisanship shapes how people evaluate the economy and the effectiveness of governance.
The “our side in power” effect leads to more favorable assessments of policy when one’s party is in control and more negative assessments when the opposing party is in power.
Impact on public opinion and voting behavior
Partisan alignment influences president election outcomes and congressional voting patterns.
In general, party loyalty has remained robust; electoral choices still cluster around party lines despite individual candidate differences.
Page 6: 9-6 The Two-Party System
Two main explanations for the persistence of a two-party system in the U.S.
1) Electoral structure and rules:
The United States uses a plurality, winner-take-all electoral system with single-member districts for most offices. This design discourages third parties because:
A narrow, minor party has little chance to win under plurality rules.
Parties must seek broad coalitions to win a plurality in each district, which discourages extreme, niche parties.
France (as a contrast) uses runoff elections to require a broader first-round support that enables more parties to exist, then form coalitions to win the runoff.
The Electoral College magnifies the two-party dynamic because most states award all electoral votes to the state winner, reinforcing a two-party focus at the national level.
2) Public opinion and strategic incentives:
Most Americans perceive two clear alternatives, and there is no mass, durable third-party coalition with broad appeal across the economy, civil rights, and foreign policy.
Historical settlement: largely a consequence of long-standing political practices, with some regional monopolies (the South as Democratic-leaning for a long period, New England and the Dakotas as Republican-leaning at times).
The combination of institutional rules and public opinion discourages third-party breakthroughs at the national level.
Persistence of a two-party system in practice
Despite regional competitiveness and contentious issues, the two major parties have remained the dominant actors in national elections.
Regional shifts (e.g., the South moving from Democratic to Republican dominance on national levels) have reconfigured coalitions but not replaced the two-party structure.
The two-party system remains resilient due to structural incentives and the electoral landscape that rewards broad, catch-all organizations rather than narrow, single-issue parties.
Why the two-party system matters for voters
It simplifies choices for many voters by offering two major options that are broadly distinct on policy, helping voters locate themselves on a political spectrum.
It also creates strategic considerations about where to invest vote energy (as third-party votes are often perceived as “wasted” under winner-take-all rules).
Key concepts and definitions
two-party system: An electoral system in which two major parties dominate national elections.
plurality system: An electoral rule in which the winner is the person who receives the most votes, not necessarily a majority.
winner-take-all: In most U.S. elections, the candidate who wins the most votes in a district or state receives all the applicable seats or electoral votes.
majority vs plurality: A majority requires more than half the votes; a plurality is the largest share, even if it is not a majority.
Minor parties and their roles
Four types of minor parties:
Ideological parties (e.g., Socialist Party, Socialist Labor Party, Communist Party): Broad, comprehensive reform platforms; historically long-lasting but limited electoral success.
Single-issue parties (e.g., Free Soil, Know Nothing, Woman’s Party): Focused on one issue; often short-lived.
Economic protest parties (e.g., Greenback Party, Populist Party): Arise from economic grievances of a specific group (e.g., farmers).
Factional parties (split from major parties): Examples include the Bull Moose (Progressive) Party and Dixiecrats (States’ Rights) Party.
Impact of minor parties:
Rarely win major offices, but can influence policy by introducing issues that major parties subsequently adopt.
The most significant historical influence often comes from factional parties: they can push major parties toward reform or new policy directions.
Notable historical episodes:
The 1912 election featured Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party splitting from the Republicans, affecting outcomes for Taft and Wilson.
The Dixiecrats’ 1948 split from the Democratic Party influenced civil rights politics and party coalitions.
Labor unions have increasingly aligned with Democrats, reducing the likelihood of forming a separate labor party.
The Tea Party movement is not a single national party but has shaped Republican reform and messaging in recent years through grassroots activism.
Summary of practical implications
Minor and factional parties can shape policy by pressuring major parties to address certain issues, even if they don’t win elections outright.
The combination of electoral structure and party discipline makes exclusive major-party domination resilient, but the influence of minor parties persists in policy debates and party reform pressures.
Key terms to remember
minor parties, ideological parties, single-issue parties, economic protest parties, factional parties
Tea Party movement (as an example of a movement influencing a major party without becoming a national party)
Cross-cutting themes across pages
The evolution of party systems is closely tied to changes in voting technology, reform movements, civil rights history, and the development of modern campaign finance.
Polarization and realignment are ongoing processes reflecting shifts in social coalitions, ideological positions, and electoral incentives.
The American two-party system persists due to structural features of the electoral system and the distribution of public opinion, even as party coalitions shift and become more diverse in their policy priorities.
Enduring questions for study
How do reforms like primaries, open vs closed systems, and super-delegates shape the ideological balance within parties and the likelihood of moderate vs. extreme nominees?
To what extent do minor parties influence major-party policy, and under what conditions can a third party challenge for the presidency?
How do partisan identification and party activism interact to shape political knowledge, media consumption, and policy preferences in contemporary politics?
Political parties are fundamental linkage institutions in American politics, working to elect candidates, shape voter perceptions, and coordinate government actions. They operate through candidate recruitment and nomination (via primaries, caucuses, and conventions involving pledged and unpledged delegates), campaign funding, and voter mobilization across national, state, and local organizational structures.
The historical evolution of U.S. parties spans five broad periods—from their initial emergence despite Framer opposition, through eras of mass participation, Civil War-era realignments, Progressive reforms against political machines, to contemporary polarization driven by activists. American parties are generally weaker than those in parliamentary democracies due to factors like decentralized ballot access, the separation of powers between the executive and legislature, and federalism. Despite the decline of patronage-based machines, modern parties remain powerful through extensive fundraising and the influence of policy advocates and issue-driven activism.
Partisanship, or party identification, is a stable, long-term voter attachment that profoundly influences perceptions of politics, government evaluations, and voting behavior; many self-identified "Independents" actually lean towards and vote with a major party. The U.S. maintains a persistent two-party system primarily because of its plurality-based, winner-take-all electoral rules—specifically single-member districts and the Electoral College—which discourage minor parties. While minor parties rarely win major national offices, they can still influence policy by introducing new issues that major parties may eventually adopt.
Political parties are fundamental linkage institutions in American politics, working to elect candidates, shape voter perceptions, and coordinate government actions. They operate through candidate recruitment and nomination (via primaries, caucuses, and conventions involving pledged and unpledged delegates), campaign funding, and voter mobilization across national, state, and local organizational structures.
The historical evolution of U.S. parties spans five broad periods—from their initial emergence despite Framer opposition, through eras of mass participation, Civil War-era realignments, Progressive reforms against political machines, to contemporary polarization driven by activists. American parties are generally weaker than those in parliamentary democracies due to factors like decentralized ballot access, the separation of powers between the executive and legislature, and federalism. Despite the decline of patronage-based machines, modern parties remain powerful through extensive fundraising and the influence of policy advocates and issue-driven activism.
Partisanship, or party identification, is a stable, long-term voter attachment that profoundly influences perceptions of politics, government evaluations, and voting behavior; many self-identified "Independents" actually lean towards and vote with a major party. The U.S. maintains a persistent two-party system primarily because of its plurality-based, winner-take-all electoral rules—specifically single-member districts and the Electoral College—which discourage minor parties. While minor parties rarely win major national offices, they can still influence policy by introducing new issues that major parties may eventually adopt.