Texas Parties, Electoral Systems & Political Realignment – Comprehensive Lecture Notes

Different Core Goals
- Political party: main objective is to win elective office and gain control of government.
- Interest group: main objective is to influence office-holders after they win; most do not nominate their own candidates (they may endorse, e.g.A0NRA).
Implications for Compromise
- Parties must appeal to broad electorates; therefore they form coalitions of conflicting factions (e.g.A0Liberty Caucus vs. other Republicans; social conservatives vs.A0libertarians on abortion).
- Interest groups have little incentive to compromise on core issues (e.g.A0environmental lobby refusing weaker pollution standards) because electoral victory is not their goal.

Factions join a party even when they disagree on certain issues if:
- They need the partys ballot label and resources to have a realistic chance of office.
- Example: Libertarians that are anti-abortion regulation stay in the GOP to push for small-government economics.
Parties compromise to avoid bad optics (e.g.A0budget impasse causing a government shutdown hurts re-election chances).

Proportional Representation (PR)
- Seats allocated roughly proportionally to votes: $12\% \text{ votes}\ \Rightarrow\ 12\% \text{ seats ( = 12 of 100 )}$ .
- Minimizes wasted votes; encourages multi-party systems.
Single-Member District Plurality (SMD or First-Past-the-Post)
- Each district elects one winner with the most votes (plurality); can win with < $50\%$ .
- Up to $49.99\%$ of votes can be wasted for the runner-up.
- Creates large disproportionality between vote share and seat share (Duvergers mechanical effect).
Duvergers Law
- SMD-plurality systems promote a two-party system.
- PR systems promote multi-party competition.
Psychological Effect
- Voters avoid wasting votes on hopeless minor-party candidates; they defect to the more viable major party closest to them.
Spoiler Dynamic
- A third-party candidate can siphon pivotal votes (e.g.A0Ralph Nader 2000 Florida) and change the result.

Historically strict requirements kept minor parties/independents off the ballot.
- 2019 reform lowered vote threshold to $2\%$ but added fees/signature burdens (e.g.A0 $5,000$ fee or $5{,}000$ signatures).
- Independent statewide candidate needs $\approx 83{,}700$ valid signatures (≥ $1\%$ of last gubernatorial turnout) from voters who did not vote in a primary.

Agenda-setting – draw public attention to new issues.
- Populists placed railroad/bank regulation on agenda in 1890s.
Issue adoption by major party.
- TX Democrats later embraced rail/bank regulation demanded by Populists; adopted La Raza Unida anti-discrimination planks.
Coalition leverage / policy concessions.
- Common in parliamentary systems when a major party needs minor-party seats to form a government; minor party wins policy promises or can collapse the coalition.

Libertarian Party – minimal government, maximal individual liberty (ideology = libertarianism).
Green Party – environmental protection & government reform.
La Raza Unida (1970s) – Mexican-American rights; won local offices in Crystal City/Zavala County; forced Democrats to court Latino vote.
Populist Party (1890s) – agrarian, anti-corporate; second-largest TX party for a time; spurred railroad commission & banking dept. creation.
Local victories occur where a minor partys supporters are a plurality within a district despite statewide plurality rules.

Early statehood (pre-Civil War) – factions: pro-Houston vs.A0anti-Houston on Union vs.A0secession.
Mid-1800s – Jackson Democrats (labor-oriented) vs.A0Calhoun Democrats (pro-slavery expansion).
Civil War / Reconstruction
- Republicans (party of Lincoln) = anti-slavery; imposed military rule & 13th-15th Amendments.
- Created lasting white Southern resentment ("waving the bloody shirt").
1870s-1960s One-Party Democratic Dominance
- "Yellow-Dog Democrats": would vote Democratic even for a "yellow dog."
- Mechanisms of segregation & disenfranchisement maintained racial hierarchy.
- Populist challenge briefly displaced GOP as #2 party.
Intra-Democratic Split
- Conservatives: pro-business, anti-union.
- Liberals: New Deal supporters (Social Security, wage & hour laws, CCC, etc.).
Civil-Rights Era Realignment
- 1948-64: Truman desegregates military; Johnson signs 1964 Civil Rights Act & 1965 Voting Rights Act.
- Result:
- African Americans shift Republican → Democratic (party realignment).
- White Traditionalists shift Democratic → Republican, ending the "Solid South."
- 1978: Bill Clements becomes first GOP governor since Reconstruction.
1994-Present – Republicans win every statewide office; conservative voters fully migrate.
- Democratic coalition now anchored by liberals, African Americans, Latinos, urban voters, women.

Party ID often forms in youth via salient events:
- Great Recession bailouts, 9/11, Iraq War, Obama & Trump presidencies, BLM, Dobbs abortion ruling.
Competing impressions can push different cohorts toward either party; Texas could follow Arizona (purple/blue) or Florida (red) trajectory.

Straight-Ticket Voting – selecting all candidates of one party.
- Texas removed the single "straight-ticket" button; voters can still manually vote one party line.
Split-Ticket Voting – voter chooses different parties for different offices.

$12\%$ vote share → $12$ seats (PR example).
Up to $49.99\%$ of votes wasted in an SMD race.
Texas minor-party convention fee $=\$5{,}000$ or $5{,}000$ signatures.
Independent statewide access: $1\%$ of last governor vote ≈ $83{,}700$ signatures.