Political Parties & the American Party System

Puzzle: Negative Perceptions vs. Democratic Necessity

• Parties in the U.S. carry strong negative connotations ("disagreement," "gridlock") yet are indispensable to democracy.
• Central contradiction introduced through two emblematic quotes:
  • George Washington: warned parties could become “potent engines” for “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men.”
  • Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider: “Modern democracy is unthinkable, save in terms of political parties.”
• Core idea: Much of the conflict Americans blame on parties is traceable instead to the constitutional system (separation of powers, competitive elections).

Key 2016 Campaign Illustration

• Republican nominee (Donald Trump) denounced GOP establishment.
• Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton) pledged bipartisanship but also decried polarization.
• Example underscores public frustration with party conflict even as both candidates remained party-dependent.

Definitions & Distinctions

• Political party: group that organizes under a common label to win and exercise political office.
• Ubiquitous in all democracies with strong legislatures.
• Different from interest groups: parties seek office directly; interest groups influence from outside.
• Conflict occurs across parties (D vs. R) and within parties (e.g., 2016 Trump vs. GOP congressional & state orgs).

3 Faces of a Party (V. O. Key)

1. Party in Government (PIG) – elected officeholders.
2. Party as Organization (PAO) – formal apparatus, staff, committees.
3. Party in the Electorate (PIE) – ordinary citizens who identify with the party.

• Not mutually exclusive; an individual can belong to all three.
• Example: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was simultaneously PIG (Member of Congress), PAO (DNC Chair, 2011-2016), and PIE (rank-and-file Democrat).

Role 1 – Party in Government

• Organizes legislative & executive action: drafting bills, staffing agencies, setting agendas.
• Creates binding coalitions to avoid “policy cycles.”
• Coalition instability without parties illustrated through cycling model:
  1. Coalition A: Students + Veterans (50 % / 50 %).
  2. Farmers entice Veterans to switch (40 %/60 %).
  3. Students entice Farmers (50 %/50 %).
  4. Veterans entice Farmers (40 %/60 %).
  • Endless rotation unless an agenda-setting party enforces discipline.
• Contemporary example: 2023 Speaker election—Kevin McCarthy required 15 ballots due to intra-GOP factionalism (Tea Party, Freedom Caucus).

Role 2 – Party as Organization

• Primary objective: elect as many co-partisans as possible.
• Tasks:
  • Recruit/select candidates (primaries & caucuses).
  • Fund-raising (costs skyrocketing).
  • Voter mobilization.
• Organizational tiers (mirrored in both parties):
  • National Committee → plans strategy, writes rules, stages convention.
  • House & Senate campaign committees (e.g., DCCC “Frontline,” NRCC “Young Guns”).
  • State → County → City party committees.
• Personnel:
  • Party Professionals: career staff loyal to electoral success.
  • Party Amateurs/Issue Activists: prioritize specific policy causes (e.g., guns, environment).

Role 3 – Party in the Electorate

• Partisan Identification (PID) frameworks:
  1. Psychological attachment (Michigan Model) – stable social identity; biases information processing.
  2. Information shortcut – brand cue for low-information voters.
  3. Running tally – updated performance evaluation: “I’m Republican while GOP performs well.”
• Empirical fact: PID is the single best predictor of vote choice.

Collective Dilemmas Solved by Parties

• Coordination problem: prevent vote-splitting by nominating one candidate per office.
  • Graphical ballot example: If Democrats run Bob (35 %) & Andy (25 %) vs. GOP Carla (40 %), Carla wins despite 60\% Democratic majority.
• Collective-action (voter turnout) problem: reduce cost of participation, provide information, emphasize stakes to deter free-riding.
• Historical candidate-selection evolution:
  • 19th-century “smoke-filled rooms” (elite caucuses) → criticized for corruption.
  • 20th-century mass primaries – more open yet may yield extreme nominees.
  • Closed vs. Open primaries (e.g., Florida = closed; concerns over “raiding” by other party).

U.S. Party Systems Through History

Sixth-System Coalitions (post-1980)

• Democratic: urban/coastal residents, Upper-Midwest, racial & ethnic minorities, labor unions, low-income, LGBTQ+, environmentalists, liberals.
• Republican: suburban & rural, whites (esp. South, Mountain West), high-income/business, retirees, evangelical Christians, conservatives.

Polarization Trends

• Fewer moderates in Congress, state legislatures, and electorate.
• Rising “affective” polarization: dislike of opposite party.
  • Survey: Parents unhappy if child marries opposite-party member skyrocketed from
• Drives legislative gridlock and voter hostility (us-vs-them identity).

Realignment & Issue Evolution

• Partisan realignment: durable shift in group coalitions (e.g., Southern whites → GOP; African Americans → Democrats).
• Wedge issues: parties exploit divisive topics (abortion, transgender rights, immigration) to peel voters.
• Coleman & Jackson (2021) “Dynamic Partisanship” – voters switch parties when:
  1. People change (attitudes evolve).
  2. Circumstances change (retrospective economy).
  3. Parties change positions (most impactful historically, e.g., civil-rights reversal).

Why Only Two Major Parties?

1. Duverger’s Law / Electoral Rules
   • Single-Member Plurality Districts (SMPD) → winner-take-all.
   • Minor party with 20\% of vote in every district wins 0 seats.
2. Nationalization & Centralization
   • 1930s onward: power concentrated federally, squeezing state-based third parties.
3. Institutional Barriers
   • Ballot-access signatures, fund-raising limits, debate thresholds.

• Result: \approx95\% of votes since early 20^{th} century go to Democrats or Republicans.

Comparison to Other Democracies

• Most parliamentary systems: proportional representation, 4+ parties, coalition governments.
• Party discipline much higher abroad:
  • Leadership controls candidate lists; votes of confidence can dissolve government.
• U.S. primaries & individualistic campaigns → weaker discipline, greater member autonomy, slower law-making.

Misunderstandings & Media Frames

• Parties blamed for systemic conflict actually rooted in constitutional design.
• Media emphasizes partisan “horse-race,” reinforcing negative perceptions.
• Despite distrust, parties enable policymaking and channel conflict into electoral & legislative arenas.

Current & Future Disruptors

• Possible new realignments: transgender rights, immigration, post-COVID economic disruption, budget deficits.
• Third-party vote-splitting can still sway outcomes (e.g., Sanders & Johnson 2016).

Supplemental Readings

• Lilliana Mason (2018), “Uncivil Agreement” – partisan hostility now driven by social identity, not policy.
• Coleman & Jackson (2021), “Dynamic Partisanship” – explains voter loyalty shifts; finds party position changes most decisive.

Key Numerical References

• 15 ballots for McCarthy speakership, 2023.
• 40\%/50\%/60\% shares in cycling & coalition examples.
• 95\% of U.S. votes since early 1900s accrued to two major parties.
• Parent-child partisan-marriage displeasure: \uparrow from