Political Parties October 10th and 11th

In 1870, political cartoonist Thomas Nast depicted the Democratic Party with a donkey in a New York City-based magazine, "Harper’s Weekly." Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, had already used the donkey on posters during his 1828 presidential campaign In 1874, another Nast cartoon in "Harper’s Weekly" used an elephant to represent Republican voters who were dissatisfied with the prospect of President Ulysses S. Grant running for a third term. Nast used the elephant in another "Harper’s Weekly" cartoon two weeks later. Other political cartoonists picked up on the animals as symbols of their respective political parties. Today, the Democrats use the donkey as an unofficial symbol, while the Republicans officially adopted the elephant as their party mascot. Nast’s 1870 and 1874 cartoons are shown

above.

Major Topics

1. Role of Political Parties2. Weaknesses of American P.P.’s3. Rising Partisanship4. Third Parties

Functions of Political Parties . . .Are they vital to liberal democracy?

Electioneering• Nominate candidates (but . . .)• Run Campaigns (but candidate centered) this is key diff b/w them and Igs; this is their “recruitment” function what is liberal democ w/o competitive elections?

Helping voters • Registering• Getting voters to polls• Giving cues to voters

What’s democracy w/o voters?

Linkage InstitutionThe party is essentially a link between the citizen and the state; party is one of the devices which makes possible citizen influence on the policies of government.what is democ w/o citizen control?

Organizing Government• Articulate policies• Coordinate policy making• Need support to get law making

accomplished

Unify diverse interestsBy bringing together diff people and ideas they help establish the means by which a majority can rule—w/o them the pol process would be too fragmented; but b/c they are a relatively heterogeneous group, they also prevent tyranny of the majority and act as a modifying inflence

The Conventional Wisdom:

Versus: George Washington in 1796 farewell address: “Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit . . . exists under different shapes in government, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greater rankness and is truly their worst enemy.”

Remember James Madison: “factions” (read Political Parities and Interest Groups) are ______________ in a free system. Since you can’t eliminate them, you’d better just: _________

Things to remember about American Political Parties . . . .

Our parties are relatively weak compared to other liberal democracies . . .

Meaning:

Decentralized—organized as a stratarchy

Stratarchy is an organization in which each strata (or layer) is independent of every other strata. Each unit within a strata also is independent of every other unit within that strata.

Meaning . . . They can’t call for elections, their governing power might be weakened by divided government, they don’t have many ways to discipline members who don’t vote the party platform, and anyone can say they are running on their ticket—like it or not

Divided Government- A sign of P.P.’s weaknesses

In other systems, (like Canada), a bad party member can be relegated to the back bench, s/he won’t get “parachuted” into a safe seat, some systems even say you can lose your seat if you don’t vote with the party and the biggest consequence of all: if govt loses something they have designated a “vote of confidence” new elections mean the MP may lose his or her seat

Why are parties weak?

• Federalism• Separation of powers• Primaries• Political culture• pluralism (many access points)• Lots of media outlets (don’t need parties to get message

out)• Stronger Igs (other options) • NO MORE SOFT MONEY

• The history of soft money . . . .

• FECA pus limits on contributions and spending: • Then, the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court in "Buckley v. Valeo" (1976) says limitations on

donations to candidates are constitutional in order to meet the compelling government interest in preventing corruption or the "appearance of corruption".

• BUT the Court said, limitations on campaign spending were an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech.

• Additionally, Buckley v. Valeo held that only speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate could be regulated (but not a discussion of issues)

• So . . . Beginning in the late 1970s, parties successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission to be allowed to spend soft money on non-federal party building and administrative costs. Soon, this use of soft money expanded to voter turnout and registration activities, and issue advertising.

• Candidate X runs an ad that says, "I am a good person. Candidate Y is a bad person. Vote for me on election day." Because of the "Vote for me..." portion, this is a political ad, which must be paid for with "hard money."

• Candidate Y runs an ad that says, "Candidate X has a record that includes awful things. If these awful things continue, people will come to your house, steal your money and shoot your dog. Be sure to vote on election day." Because the ad "educates" people on an issue and doesn't tell them to vote for a particular candidate, it's party building, and prior to BCRA was paid for by soft money.

Soft MoneyPrior to the 2002 passage of the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold"), political parties and other organizations could spend unregulated "soft money" for a variety of activities, especially "issue advertising", i.e. advertisements supporting a candidate's positions or critical of an opponent's positions.

• Since it was not actually received or spent by the candidate's campaign, and did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, there were no legal limits.

• . . . parties have less money to spend on e__________ function • As a result, many of the soft money-funded activities previously undertaken by

political parties have been taken over by various 5____________groups, which funded many issue ads, especially in the 2004 Presidential election.

But . . . . With the ban of soft money under McCain Feingold (the BCRA) . . .

Hard for voters to indicate an approach to governing:

Hard to hold one party responsible

Elected officials don’t do what party platform says

Tendency to middle

A democrat in the south is not a democrat in the NW

But . . . may lend itself to stability, be a better way to meet needs of all, and is in keeping with our individual emphasis

Effect of Weak Parties . . .

Signs that differences between our Political Parties are real

Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era April 2009

Here Come the Economic Populists

The parties themselves have divisions with in them . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/weekinreview/26uchitelle.html?pagewanted=all

Example- Jobs Plan- Obama eliminate tax breaks, Congress Dems- 5% tax increase on millionaires

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/politics/democratic-leaders-propose-millionaires-tax-to-pay-for-jobs-plan.html?pagewanted=2

Fiscal vs Social Conservatives- Divisions within the Republican Party

• would argue that the government should be small, especially when it comes to taxation, government expenditures and deficits, and government debt VS. . . .

• Argues that government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors

Parties are COALITIONS

How Bill Changed the Dems

The rise in partisanship in CongressRancor goes back to mid 1980s when the D controlled House refused to seat the R winner in a close raceNewt attacks House Speaker Jim Wright in 1987 and then organizes the Conservative Republican freshman class of 1994

Motion dismissedJul 14th 2005

American politics is both too rigid and too flexible

AMERICAN society has been getting less like Europe's. It is growing faster and ageing more slowly, it is geographically more mobile and (dare one say it) has become more divided between rich and poor. Yet at the same time, the structure of American politics (though not its ideology) is getting more “European”. Political parties are becoming more coherent in their beliefs, and the system of government is more centralised. . . .

This does not mean that party structures themselves have strengthened. In fact, in terms of raising money they are weaker than they have been throughout most of American history. But the parties are ideologically more distinct. And within the parties, politicians are more partisan and less diverse in their backgrounds.

. . . American parties used to be ad hoc cliques and loose regional coalitions. Party grandees chose likely candidates on the basis of patronage and loyalty, not ideology. But the defection of conservative southerners from Democrats to Republicans—and the mirror-image move of north-eastern Republicans to Democrats—made both parties' ideologies much clearer. Now almost all conservatives are Republican and almost all liberals are Democrats. When George Wallace was governor of Alabama, he used to say that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. You could not say that now.

The parties are becoming more distinct . . . . From the Economist:

Meaning . . . they have low cohesion

Which chamber is more cohesive?

Party Unity Votes in Congress

Although that is changing . . .

http://voteview.com/interest_groups_topic3_and_4_ucsd_22.htm

Few people recognize that the previous bipartisan era was an aberration, not the historical norm. Consider, for instance, this plot of estimated party polarization in Congress:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/21/house_party_means_46109.jpg

Why is there a rise in partisanship? : • Shrinking political center as parties get more homogenous• Redistricting creates safe seats• Govt controlled by slim majority so imperative that loyalty be

enforced• Congressional lifestyles—fewer live in DC so don’t socialize• Money: more time needed to raise money, so don’t socialize• Media lives on accentuating, and in some cases manufacturing,

differences. “The twenty-four/seven media cycle means policymakers must take more time to feed the beast.”

• American public

Redistricting creating safe seatsAs the economist says . . .. . . In a normal democracy, voters choose their representatives. In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way around www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1099030

Again, from another Economist article: Partisanship is also evident in redistricting, which has increased the number of safe seats towards North Korean levels. In 2004, only 30-40 congressional seats are likely to be truly competitive—a quarter of the number in the 1990s. Since 1964, the share of House incumbents re-elected with over 60% of the vote has risen from 58% to 77%. This makes congressmen's politics more extreme.

If your district is rock-solid, you have little reason to fear that voters will kick you out for moving too far from their opinions. The main threat comes from party activists, who tend to be more extreme in their views and can propose a challenger in primary elections. So the dangers of drifting too far to the middle outweigh those of drifting too far to the extremes. Partisan redistricting marginalises centrist voters, aligns the views of candidates more closely with extremists on each side and radicalises politics

How does redistricting create a growing partisanship in Congress . . .

SO . . .Reapportionment leads to redistricting . . . Which means safer seats which means more redistricting

. . . . And now it’s gotten so nasty that partisanship leads to redistricting leads to more partisanship (you don’t even wait for reapportionment)

Texas Democratic representatives look out from a balcony at the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Okla., May 13, 2003, where they stayed after leaving Texas in protest over the Republican redistricting plan

In the Texas redistricting fight . . . the democrats fled the state

Redistricting & Gerrymandering• Gerrymandering: The redrawing of political boundaries to

benefit one group at the expense of another. • Minority-vote packing districts (minority-majority districts)

struck down after 1990. – Shaw v. Reno (1993): Struck down minority district in Georgia stating

that ignoring traditional districting principles such as compactness and county or city boundaries to draw a minority district violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

– Miller v. Johnson (1995): North Carolina's efforts to create majority-minority district (African-Americans make up roughly 22% of population)

– In 1996 two more cases, in N. Carolina & Texas, affirmed that race cannot be dominant factor in redrawing district boundaries.

Gerrymandering in the 1990a

The earmuff shape of Illinois's 4th congressional district connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining contiguous by narrowly tracing Interstate 294

The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest, rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness. A second strategy, cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting block in any particular district. The strategies are typically combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another type.

                                                            

  Example for a state with 4 equally-sized districts and a 36:28 Green (G) party majority. Top left: Magenta (M) party wins the urban district, while G party wins the 3 rural/suburban districts — the result expresses and enhances the fact that G is the state-wide majority party. Top right: by redesigning the 4 districts, there is a 2:2 tie, with G dominating the 2 new rural districts and M dominating the 2 new urban/suburban districts — closer to proportionality, but masking the fact that G is the state-wide majority party. Bottom left: Creating 4 mixed-type districts can yield a 4:0 win to G — a disproportional result considering the state-wide reality. Bottom right: With classical Gerrymandering techniques it is even possible to ensure a 1:3 win to the state-wide minority M party.

How Gerrymandering can influence electoral results on a non-proportional system

Gerrymandering should not be confused with malaportionment, whereby the number of eligible voters per elected representative can vary widely

If a proportional or semi-proportional voting system is used then increasing the number of winners in any given district will reduce the number of wasted votes.

Result . . . “safe seats” which means:

Elections less competitiveIncumbent advantage enhancedLess descriptive representation .

George Wallace, a former governor of Alabama, used to say there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. But polarisation is growing in Congress. Republicans are now twice as likely to toe the party line in the House and Senate as they were in 1975. Democrats are about one-and a half times as likely. Ad hoc “coalitions of the willing” have become much rarer in domestic politics. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2172130

Effects of growing partisanship . . .remember this slide

More effects of partisanship in Congress. . . Confirmation battles leading to declining judicial confirmation rates and 100s of posts not filled

More effects . . . Rise of the filibuster and talk of the nuclear option

At first, “filibuster” referred to a “free booter” or “pirate”, who engaged in illegal activities for self gain; then it became “an endless discourse to impede the passage of an ‘unwanted’ congressional bill”.

   

1999-2001 (election 1998) still divided: D president; R congress2001-2003: (election 2000) R pres; R house; R senate which becomes D senate; * (50/50 after election, but who was a tie breaker. . . So R control until Jeffords switches to be an independent so 50 dems, 49 Rs and 1 independent)2003-2005; (election 2002) R pres, R senate 51/48/1; R House (party govt)2005-2007: (election 2004)R pres; R senate; R house2007-2009 (election 2006) what happened? ___ Pres; _______ Senate; ____ HouseSee: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

• See:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

BickeringFilibusterGov’t shutdown of 95-96Impeachment hearingsIncrementalismRedistricting battles in the statesMore time spent on investigations

Effect of Divided Govt. especially when coupled with more partisanship

BUT GRIDLOCK was the founders point

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioning Condoleezza Rice today

Jan 11, 2007

Notice one of the first things the Senate does when Dems take control in 2006. . . Question members of the R led exec

Partisanship is on the rise . . . In the electorate:

    Since the 1950s, attachment to the parties has weakened as the graph below shows.  This has allowed candidates to gain votes from those who identify with the opposite party. However, beginning in the 1980s, we see a trend where party identification has again strengthened, although still not to the levels of the 1950s, but certainly stronger than in the 70s, illustrating polarization. Along with this change have been demographic changes in party attachment.  The most notable change is the gender gap between the parties, especially evident on racial lines.  White women are more likely to be Democratic while white males Republican.   With this change, there has been some disconnect between economic status and party affiliation.  Some analysts see a significant dose of social issues as differentiating the parties http://www.uwsp.edu/business/CWERB/2ndQtr04/SpecialReportQtr2_04_files/image002.gif

Above all, polarisation has grown in the electorate, evidenced by a sharp decline in split-ticket voting (choosing a president from one party and a congressional representative from another). In 1972, 44% of congressmen and women represented a different party from the one whose presidential candidate carried their district. In 2000, the share was under 20%.

The truly independent voter seems to be disappearing. That may seem curious, because those who call themselves independents easily outnumber self-identified Democrats or Republicans. Yet most so-called independents vote consistently one way or the other. The White House reckons that less than one-third of independent voters actually switched parties in the past three elections.

With the decline of swing voters, there seems less and less point in running presidential campaigns to appeal to the slim middle. Instead, elections have become contests to mobilise core supporters. The 2000 and 2002 elections were both turn-out races.

In some ways, increased party coherence has been good for America. It certainly seemed to help the turnout in the 2004 election. True, it has led to greater polarisation; but there is something to be said for clarity, argues Mr Nivola. The public philosophy of the Democrats is much clearer now than it was in the days when the party was a bizarre amalgam of blue-collar unions, Vietnam-war demonstrators and southern segregationists. The Economist

Nastier politics, bigger turnout

More effects . . .

Other things to remember about parties . . . We have a 2 party system

Why?

But also American political culture: not ideological, no history of anti-capitalism, strong IG give other options

Third Parties have a lot of disadvantages: Lack name recognitionBallot access harderNo matching funds in presidential races (unless party got 5% of the vote in last election)Perception of “wasted vote” Excluded from debates (unless 15% support) Lack organizationIf your support is spread out, WTA hurts you

•

                                                 

                                      

Notable Third Party Candidates

• Ross Perot (Reform Party). A Texas billionaire with no experience in government, Perot captured public attention during the 1992 election for his focus on the budget deficit and his promises to bring his corporate successes to the White House. Perot participated in three presidential debates against Bill Clinton and George H. Bush, and won about 18 percent of the popular vote (studies have shown that Clinton probably would have still won had Perot not run, though Perot did cost Clinton a majority of the popular vote). Perot ran again in 1996 but with less success; he was not invited to participate in the presidential debates between Clinton and Bob Dole, and won about 8.4 percent of the vote.

• .

Ralph Nader (Green Party). A long-time consumer advocate, Nader first ran in 1996 with a nominal campaign but became a more active candidate in 2000, saying that he was both criticizing the Democratic Party as well as trying to build the Green Party as a viable and stable third-party. Nader won about 2 percent of the popular vote in 2000

• Governor George Wallace (American Independent Party). The last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes, Wallace split from the Democratic Party to run a campaign against the extension of civil rights and in favor of the Vietnam War. He had strong results in the South and won 13.5 percent of the popular vote and 48 electoral seats. Wallace subsequently returned to the Democratic Party.

Gov. George Wallace blocks the doorway to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, June 11, 1963.

Even though they don’t win, third parties do play an important role in our political system

• bring new groups into the electorate• act as "safety valves" • raise issues that other parties must address and often

incorporate into their own party platforms

And they can be “spoilers” influencing election results

Other things to know about parties: Rise of ___________; constant nature of ___________; decline of ____________

Democratic Candidates Face Southern Voters Southern Democrats More Culturally Conservative, Not So Different OtherwiseReleased: January 30, 2004Pew Research Center

Why we have the 2 party system1. Electoral System- Single member

district, plurality, winner take-all (fptp)• Limits people from voting for other

parties- “wasted votes”• Alternative- Proportional

representation- seats allocated according to the % of votes each PP received

• Advantage- boost for smaller parties (issue focused)

• Disadvantage- harder to pass legislation (loose coalitions), fringe PP, regional PP

• Single member majority systems- still a smd but if no one receives over 50% then a run-off election (coalitions)

2. American Culture

• Pragmatic/individualistic- not ideological

• Not informed• No history of

opposition to capitalism (communists)

Effects of 2 Party System

1. Tendency towards the middle- esp after primaries

2. Moderation of political conflict

3. Clearly defined options for voters

4. Less representation for extreme or unconventional views

5. Divided Gov’t- unique to the USA

Primary Models1. Closed Primaries- only pre-

registered party leaders can vote

• More ideological voters, less moderates

• Ex: Iowa caucus (party member meetings- slightly different than a primary)

2. Open Primaries• Voters decide on election day if

they want to vote for Republican or Democrat elections

3. Blanket Primaries• Voters have list of

candidates from both parties

• You can vote for a Democrat for one office and Republican for another

• California’s declared unconstitutional in 2000

• Washington also had this

Blanket Primaries

Pros• Independents can

participate• Politicians can target

moderates instead of the extreme wings

Cons• Opportunity to manipulate

the other party’s primary• Violates the party’s freedom

of association- reason it was ruled unconstitutional

Alternative- Nonpartisan Blanket or “Top 2” Primary• Washington State (but not presidential- this is a caucus) and

Cali• Candidates declare a party preference but do not actually

represent the PP• Voters can choose whoever they want• Top 2 candidates, regardless of PP, are put on the final

election ballot