GOVT 2305

Political Parties

This week we come to terms with political parties, their design,

evolution and impact on government.

Last week we discussed elections, how they are designed in the

American governing system and the various purposes they serve.

We mentioned that elections are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and play a role in establishing the

relationship between each governing institution and the

people.

We also mentioned that the Constitution says nothing about

political parties. Nevertheless they have evolved into dominant

features of government.

They exist because they are very good at winning elections.

Independent candidates rarely win elections on the national and state

levels.

Political parties are perhaps the dominant feature of the American political system.

Proponents of parties argue that they are responsible for the

development of democracy in the United States.

Parties have been instrumental in expanding suffrage.

Blog Tags

Parties.Parties in Congress.

Parties in the Texas Legislature.Partisanship.Party Activist.

Party Base.Party Bosses.

Blog Tags

Party Coalitions.Party Cohesion.

Party Eras.Party Identification.

Party Leaders.Party Line Voting.Party Machines.

Party Polarization.

A Definition of “Political Party”

A group of individuals organized around shared political principles

with the intent of winning elections to governmental office

and organizing governing institutions once in power.

Parties are similar to interest groups, but the key distinction

between them is that a political party is organized to compete in

and win elections.

The principle value of a political party is in organizing and

mobilizing like minded individuals to impact policy

This involves, as we will see below, a great deal of internal

compromise. Interest groups can hone in on one issue and not

compromise. Parties always have to compromise on something.

Due to the winner take all system, parties are collections of factions that sometimes come into fierce competition with each other to

define what the party stands for.

Currently there are two dominant broad based political parties in the

United States and Texas

The Democratic PartyThe Republican Party

Texas Handbook Online: Democratic PartyTexas Handbook Online: Republican Party

As we will see, its difficult often to determine exactly what the terms

refer to.

Due to their decentralized nature, parties can sometimes shift their

positions on issues.

Parties are sometimes referred to in three different ways:

Parties as OrganizationsParties in Congress

Parties in the Electorate

Parties as Organizations: Political parties have complex

organizational structures across each level of government and

among different actors.

Parties in Congress: Political parties are the dominant

organizational element in the U.S. Congress and determine what these institutions in fact do.

Parties in the Electorate: Political parties provide information and

voting cues to those that identify with them.

I’ll use this three part breakdown to organize this discussion

Parties as Organizations

While the U.S. has a two party system, many other parties exist,

at least on paper.

Click here for a list and description of many of them.

None are competitive on an ongoing basis, though on occasion

a third party may earn enough popularity to influence a specific

election.

Here’s a list:

1848 – The Free Soil Party1856 – Know Nothing Party

1860 – Constitutional Union and Southern Democrat1892 – Populist

1912 – Progressive1924 – Progressive

1948 – State’s Rights1968 – American Independent

1980 – Independent (John Anderson)1992 – Independent (Ross Perot)

1996 – Reform Party2000 – Green Party

As we know from the previous lecture, the logic introduced into the electoral process due to the

winner take all system makes third parties uncompetitive in the long

term.

As we know from studying elections, the American electoral

system’s winner take all rules tend to support the development of two

large parties and discourages support for minor parties

Recall that incentives exist against voting for minor parties.

A vote for a preferred minor party candidate can take a

vote away from a “good enough” major party candidate.

People are often encouraged to not “throw their votes away” on a

minor party or uncompetitive candidates.

Recent examples of third party candidates

Ross Perot – Reform PartyRalph Nader – Green Party

Republicans believe Perot pulled votes from George HW Bush in 1992 and Democrats believed Nader did the same to Gore in

2000.

Neither party or candidates did well the following election.

Recall this general rule from the previous section:

Winner Take All Elections=

The Two Party System

And this:

Proportional Representation=

Multiparty Systems

An Example:

Israel Knesset

It’s website shows the list of people each party offers the

electorate and also the breakdown between votes and seats in the

legislature.

People tend to cluster their votes around two top competitors, and have so practically since the first

election in American history.

A review of American elections, especially presidential results,

demonstrates this point.

For proof, looks through the election results on the following

website. Open up the elections on the left hand column and notice the top vote getters. It’s a great tour through American history.

You will be able to see the two elections where each of the

current two dominant parties first competed.

For the Democrats it was the election of 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected due to the support of the

recently enfranchised non-property owners.

He was the first person elected President that was not from a state

that was one of the original colonies.

For Republicans it was the election of 1856, when John Fremont ran against the expansion of slavery.

Since then these two political parties have dominated politics in

the U.S.

In the intervening 150 years, each party has developed large

sophisticated (if sometimes unpredictable and unmanageable) organizations that reach down to each precinct in the nation, and

include county and state organizations as well.

This guarantees them placement on the ballot in almost all races (so

long as they are partisan – some local races do not include party affiliation). Minor parties often

have to collect large numbers of signatures to get on the ballot.

A word or two on precincts: These were briefly covered in the

previous section. They are the lowest level of governing in the

nation and serve only to provide a place for people to vote and for

votes to be counted and sent up to the county for further counting.

Precincts tend to be run by precinct judges and chairmen,

which are generally elected by the local Democratic or Republican

Party, depending on which party’s candidates’ won the precinct

majority in the previous election.

A guiding principle of political organization is that a party organization ought to exist

wherever elections are held.

Here’s the point: Over the previous 150 years, the two parties have

effectively controlled the electoral process across the nation down to

the precinct level.

This gives them a large degree of power and control over the

political process.

Some related readings on the importance of the precinct:

- A Ten Minute Lesson.- Is the Precinct Committeeman the most powerful office in the

nation?- The Precinct Project’s Blog.

- Brazoria County Precinct Maps.

Each party is built up from the precinct level.

Counties in the state of Texas – the large ones – have Democratic and

Republican organizations.

State and County Links:

Brazoria County Democratic PartyBrazoria County Republican Party

Galveston County Democratic PartyGalveston County Republican Party

Harris County Democratic PartyHarris County Republican Party

Above the counties are the state party organizations

Texas Democratic PartyTexas Republican Party

The following links take you to the national committees of each party.

The Democratic Party

Official website of the Democratic National Committee.

Wikipedia entry.

The Republican Party

Official website of the Republican National Committee.

Wikipedia entry.

In addition to these organizations are a variety of informal “clubs” that allow

party identifiers the opportunity to influence party matters.

Example: The Harris County Democratic Party lists several dozen

Democratic clubs in the county.

This decentralization can lead to confusion over just exactly what a

party stands for.

Differences exist between different groups that identify with each

party. Regional differences exist as well.

Despite tension on certain issues, some consistency exists on the positions taken in each party.

Here are brief descriptions of each.

The Democratic Party tends to be more liberal to moderate in its political positions. It supports egalitarian principles, minority rights, labor unions, the public sector, and is socially liberal.

The Republican Party tends to be more conservative to moderate. It seeks to minimize governmental

involvement in the private sector, is pro-business, and supports

socially conservative positions.

Up until the late 1970s, the Democratic Party dominated

politics in Texas. The Republican Party has largely dominated since

then. This occurred because conservatives shifted from the Democratic to the Republican

Parties.

Party positions can vary depending on region and state.

The Massachusetts Republican Party is generally more liberal than

the Texas Democratic Party.

Internal disputes exist within each party due to the

fact that each party is composed of a number of factions which do not necessary share the same opinions

on all policy matters.

For example, as members of the Tea Party have become more

influential in the Republican Party the positions the party has taken have become more conservative

than normal.

To add to the confusion, there is a permanent party organization and

a temporary party organization.

Click here for a diagram of each in Texas.

A temporary party organization exists during election season which includes the delegates elected to

vote in precinct, county, state and national conventions.

Each election year when voting is finished an convention is held

where the vote was held. Delegates are elected from there

to vote for their preferred candidates at the county

convention, where delegates are then selected for the state

convention.

State conventions are held every two years in Texas.

- 2010 Texas Democratic Convention.

- 2010 Texas Republican Convention.

Every presidential year, delegates are then selected for the national

conventions.

Democratic National ConventionRepublican National Convention

Historically, the national party was able to determine who their party nominee was going to be at these conventions, but the due to the

primary election process, this decision has already been made by the voters in each of the primary elections held

throughout the country.

Initially this minimized the impact that party leader had over who

became the party’s nominee would be and sometimes an

“extreme” and uncompetitive candidate would emerge from the

process.

Examples:

1964: Barry Goldwater1972: George McGovern

The contest over the presidential nominees tends to pit the party

establishment against party activists.

Sometimes party activists can succeed in getting one of their

candidates nominated, often by directly appealing to primary

voters in each state.

Examples:

1976: Jimmy Carter1980: Ronald Reagan

One way the establishment can influence the outcomes of primary elections is by their timing. Front loading primaries (bunching them

up front) can help the establishment candidate by

making it less likely an outsider candidate catches fire and wins.

Question:

Since each state has its own party apparatus, and is somewhat

autonomous, do we have a two party system or a 100 party system

given that each party has an organization in each state?

What does this mean for party leadership?

Who is in charge of each party?

For the party that controls the White House it is the President.

For the party that does not, this is not clear.

Who controls the Republican Party?

The head of the RNC?John Boehner?

Mitch McConnell?Rush Limbaugh?

The Tea Party Caucus?

Who determines what parties stand for?

Office holders?Candidates?

Party Officials?Party Activists?

Each is autonomous to a large degree and can have their own unique influence on parties and

the positions they take.

It is generally assumed that a party’s positions are articulated in their platforms. A party platform is “a

political party's formal statement of its basic principles, objectives, and

positions on major issues.”

Click here for party platforms throughout American history.

But here’s a problem: A party’s platform is generally written by party activists. Candidates are under no obligation to run on

them.

Claim: “Party platforms are written by activists to be ignored by

candidates.”

Activists may simply be motivated by issues, candidates need to win elections. What if an issue on the platform makes a candidate less

competitive?

Party Coalitions

As we know, electoral rules discourage the competitiveness of

minor parties.

They also force voter to compromise.

The candidate of either party may not be the preferred candidate for an individual, but they compromise

in order to get someone good enough.

As a result, the major parties are coalitions of

likeminded factions.

These can change from election to election.

Recent Party Data:

Groups that voted for Obama or McCain.

Election Trends by Group.

Member of factions have a tendency to support one party

more than the other, but support is not absolute.

As we will see below when we discuss party eras, the rise of the

Republican Party occurred at least party because on faction within

the Democratic Party – white southerners – realigned to the

Republican Party.

What follows is a reasonably accurate appraisal of the current

coalitions within each party.

Democratic Factions

Social LiberalsUnion Members Ethnic Minorities

Jews and CatholicsEnvironmentalists

From Politics1.com: “. . . prominent Democrats run the wide gamut from the near Euro-style democratic-socialist left (Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) and traditional

liberals (Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi) to the Dem center-right (Harry Reid, Heath Shuler and the NDN) to the GOP-style conservative right (Ben Nelson

and the Blue Dog Coalition) to the pragmatic Democratic Leadership Council's "centrist" moderate-

to-liberal style (Mark Warner, Harold Ford Jr, Rahm Emanuel).”

Republican Factions

Social ConservativeBusiness Owners and Managers

Anglo Protestants and EvangelicalsThe Military

From Politics1.com: “Republicans can generally be classified into several different sub-sets: traditional conservatives (John

Boehner, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, and the Club for Growth), the Religious Right (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, and the Family Research Council), the

rapidly dwindling old Nixon/Rockefeller "centrist" or "moderate" wing (Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and the Republican Main

Street Partnership), libertarians (Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty and the Republican Liberty Caucus), and a "paleo-conservative" wing that backs strict anti-immigration controls (Tom Tancredo

and Pat Buchanan). The influential "Tea Party" movement -- split between several groups who each claim the name (Tea Party

Patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, etc.) -- emerged in 2009 and seem to straddle somewhere between the libertarian

and paleo-conservative wings of the GOP.”

Democratic Factions have led the party to take positions that are

moderate to liberal.

Tendency towards egalitarianism

Support for policies not universal among identifiers

Democratic positions

pro-choicepro-same sex

poverty programsenvironmental programs

unilateralistpro-minimum wage

pro-collective bargaining

But there are pro-life Democrats

An example of a current issue for Democrats:

Health Care Reform- single payer

- public option- limits on market place

Collective Bargaining

Republican Factions have led the party to take positions that are moderate to

conservative.

Tendency towards minimizing government – but not the military or

Medicare.

Support for policies not universal among identifiers

Pro-lifetraditionalism

resistant to poverty programssuspicious of environmentalism

unilateralistno government involvement in

wage and worker issues

There are pro-same sex marriage and pro-choice

Republicans

The strength of either political party depends on whether they can hold their coalition together

and which can attract the support of independents

Parties in the Government

Parties dominate legislative institutions at the national and

state level, and strongly influence executive and judicial institutions

as well.

There are a handful of tasks that parties have that enable them to

control – or seek to control – governing institutions.

Specific tasks:

Recruit candidatesManage campaigns

Raise fundsDevelop legislative agendas

Steer these through legislaturesPromote them to the public

Parties have grown to dominate Congress. All decisions made in

Congress are first made in meetings of the membership of each party. The majority party is

generally in a position to determine what happens in the

institution.

The organization are called caucuses and each party has them

in the house and in the Senate.

Here links to each:

The House Democratic CaucusThe House Republican Conference

The Senate Democratic CaucusThe Senate Republican Conference

The current power of parties in Congress was not predicted when

the Constitution was written.

Parties were not mentioned in the Constitution and did not exist, as external forces, until at least the

1830s.

As internal forces they developed almost immediately.

Some history:

A party system had developed in Britain after the Glorious Revolution and had featured the landed Gentry (the Whigs) against the Court (the

Tories). Both were aristocratic organizations, but this demonstrates

the tension that existed between them.

Party divisions had also existed in colonial America

Some were Pro-British, some were Pro-Independence.

The fight over the ratification of the Constitution (as well as the whether to have a convention to

begin with) was also a party dispute.

The supporters of the Constitution would become the Federalists and

the opponents (the Anti-Federalists) would become the

Democrat – Republicans.

But concerns were expressed over the existence of parties.

Recall the concerns expressed about factions in Federalist #10.

Washington counseled against them.

In his Farewell Address he tried to persuade people from

supporting and joining them.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

His key point: Political parties add additional, unnecessary contention in society. They interfere with the proper workings of government.

(discussion question: was he right?)

But parties proved to be an effective way to organize Congress

and to enable groups within Congress to establish and pass a

legislative agenda.

Political parties help solve collective action problems by taking what would otherwise

normally be a disorganized group and providing structure to it.

Without a party organization, it is unlikely that a cohesive legislative

agenda could not be developed and passed.

Parties can propose a legislative agenda and implement it, which

gives voters something to vote for or against.

Proponents of parties argue that there is no democracy without

political parties.

Parties, not government, were responsible for the expansion of

political participation.

Political parties that offer distinct platforms that they then commit to implement offer clarity to the

voter. One has a better chance to determine what they are voting for and what they are voting against.

Some also argue that parties are necessary in order to overcome the limitations on government established by the checks and

balances.

Recall that the checks and balances allow each institution the

opportunity to negate the actions of the other two.

This is far less likely to occur if the individuals that control each

institution are committed to the same set of principles.

Party membership helps guarantee this.

While Washington and other may have opposed parties, they proved useful and soon became features of the American political system.

Ironically, parties actually developed in Washington’s

Administration. Conflict erupted over the future direction of the

country between two key members of his administration.

Alexander Hamilton – The FederalistsThomas Jefferson – The Democrat Republicans

Alexander Hamilton, his Treasury Secretary, promoted the

development of a commercial republic.

Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State, wanted to retain an agrarian

society.

The simple question they asked, should America have a commercial or agrarian future, was presented

to the public in the form of a set of policies presented by the Federalist Party and a set

presented by the Democrat-Republicans?

Federalists

Pay off debtsNational bank

Internal improvementsTariffs

Loose Reading of Constitution to allow for additional national power

Democrat-Republicans

Rather than debts, they wanted to focus on the immediate economic needs of farmers. Tariffs hurt their

competitiveness. They wanted economic decisions made at the

state and local level.

The Federalists argued that the future of the country would be

best served by having a dynamic economic system based in

metropolitan areas.

The Democrat Republicans believed there was virtue on the farm. People were more likely to

be self sufficient on the farm. Cities were nests of dependency.

But a curious thing happened on the way to a two party system.

Oppositions parties were made illegal. This was driven by John Adam’s concerns about a rising

organized opposition.

The Alien and Sedition Acts

1798 - These were a deliberate attempt by the Federalists to

outlaw the emerging opposition party.

What is Sedition?

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent

or rebellion.

Even while opposition parties and movement were emerging in

Britain and the colonies, the idea that one could criticize those in

power was not generally accepted.

Free Speech, especially among the general public, took a while to

develop.

John Adams did not care for the number of people who criticized

him. He argued that seditious attacks could weaken the

government.

The Sedition Act

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions opposed the acts.

The Democrat – Republicans opposed the acts and defeated the

Federalists in the 1800 election. The acts were allowed to expire.

As a consequence. the principle of the loyal opposition emerged.

Since then American elections have generally pitted two major

parties against each other.

These parties have slowly, overtime, become the dominant

institutions in Congress.

The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives details

the history of party divisions in the institution.

The following wikipedia page has a breakdown of the current party

leadership in the U.S. House.

Party Control of the House

Click here for the party history in the U.S. Senate (here’s more).

The following wikipedia page has a breakdown of the current party

leadership in the U.S. Senate.

The Democratic and Republican party caucuses in each chamber

effectively control all other institutions in each chamber as

well as the Congressional agenda and the bill making process.

House Democratic Caucus (wikipedia)Senate Democratic Caucus (wikipedia)

House Republican Conference (wikipedia)Senate Republican Conference (wikipedia)

What is the proof that parties are the dominant institution in

Congress?

One item used as proof is the “party unity score” which is a measure of the percentage of votes in the House and Senate

where a majority of Democrats are opposed to a majority of

Republicans. These have increased over recent decades to about 90%.

For more information on this measure:

- Party Unity in Congressional Voting

- Party Unity Scores (1857 – 2010)- CQ Vote Studies: 2010

- The Parties Really Are Unified

Political party strength in U.S. states

Parties in the Electorate

As we know, parties are driving forces in elections. The question is

how strong a force they are and what is the nature of their

influence over the electorate considering that other factors exist

that attempt to influence the public.

It is assumed that party identification – the degree to

which an individual identifies with a political party - helps drive voter

behavior.

People who study political socialization argue that party

identification is first established in childhood either by parents, or by events that child is exposed to and

uses to identify with a particular party, generally because of who happens to be president at that

time.

Party identification matters because people who identify with one of the major parties tend to vote for them and to also take

“cues” from the party and party leaders.

The precise nature of this influence is a subject of debate. Voters are

also influenced by candidate characteristics and by the nature

of the times.

This can cause people to not vote for a candidate of the party they

normally support.

Example:

Reagan Democrats

(unionized auto workers)

When parties were first established, party identification tended to very strong, but this was reinforced by

certain rules which allowed the party to control government at the local

level.

This was the apex of party power. Political parties were controlled by local machines and party bosses.

Examples:

- Tammany Hall under William Tweed.

- George Berham Parr, the Duke of Duval County. He was accused of

delivering the votes needed to elect LBJ senator.

Boss Tweed

Rules allowed bosses to control ballot boxes and access to the

polls, votes were not anonymous and favors were given (and

punishment administered) as a consequence of one’s vote.

Many of these rules were changed by progressive policies in the early

20th Century.

These were discussed in the previous section, but four major

changes were imposed, all together these have been argued

to have reduced the power of political parties and made the candidate and external groups

more powerful.

Registration RequirementsCivil Service Reforms

The Anonymous BallotPrimary Elections

Registration Requirements

Groups of voters could no longer be organized by the party and

spend the day going from voting booth to voting booth. One is

registered to vote in one location only.

Civil Service Reforms

Jobs were no longer handed out at the sole discretion of the chief

executive, who is inevitably a party official as well. Party members are rewarded with jobs. A non-political

institution was then given that power.

The Anonymous Ballot

The party could no longer monitor who in fact voted for them. One

could vote against the party without suffering consequences.

The ballot was put together by the county, not the party.

Primary Elections

Party bosses could no longer hand pick candidates for the general

election. This was now determined by the party identifiers.

An ongoing question is whether these changes damaged parties as

institutions.

Party identification does not matter as much as it once did.

More people are calling themselves independents.

Since polling data has been collected beginning in the mid 20th century, information has been collected on

party identification.

This helps determine both the degree to which people identify with either party or as independents and what trends there are such identification.

Here’s a description of the process used by the National Election

Study to make the determination:

“Party identification normally is measured by asking individuals whether they consider themselves to be a

Democrat, Republican, or independent. Those indicating Democratic or Republican are then asked whether they are a strong or a weak Democrat or

Republican, while those claiming to be an independent are asked whether they feel closer to one of the two political parties. This yields a sevenfold classification: strong Democrats, weak Democrats, independents

closer to the Democrats, independents not closer to either party, independents closer to the Republicans,

weak Republicans, and strong Republicans. “

The Likert Scale:

- Strong Democrat- Weak Democrat- Lean Democrat

- Independent- Lean Republican- Weak Republican- Strong Republican

Here are graphs that show recent trends in party ID over the past 25

years:

Click here for related story

Note that most people call themselves independent. But what

does this mean? Since there is rarely a purely independent

candidate running, voters have to make choices between the

Democratic and the Republican candidate.

Some suggest that very few “independents” are true swing voters, that is they mix their votes between

Democrats and Candidates, most default automatically to one or the

other parties – these are called “leaners.” Taking them into

consideration, the balance between the parties changes considerably.

Click here for related story

Notice that identification shifts over time. Sometimes it changes as

soon as someone is elected president.

Over the course of American history the strength of certain

parties has come and gone.

The term Party Eras, or Party Systems, describes periods of time

when a particular relationship existed the parties.

Some analysts claim the United States gone through

six distinct party eras separated by a critical election where a

significant change occurred.

These changes happen in what are called “critical elections,” of

“realigning elections.”

For more on realignment, watch the following:

The Concept of Realignment by Daniel J. Palazzolo

There have been at least six elections where a significant change occurred in

voting patterns:

180018281860189619321968

?

Has there been a seventh? If so, when?

1980?1994?2004?2008?

In between the each election, a relatively stable relationship

existed between the two parties

To get an idea about how electoral patterns have changed over American

history, watch the following two clips (they not narrated unfortunately).

State-Level Popular Voting in Presidential Elections, 1840-2008

Counties Won in Popular Voting, 1840-2008

The First Party Era

1800 - 1828

The Second Party Era

1828 - 1860

The Third Party Era

1860 - 1896

The Fourth Party Era

1896 - 1932

The Fifth Party Era

1932 - 1968

The Sixth Party Era

1968 - ?