Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

AP Gov. Chapter 9

Terms in this set (176)

In the November 2006 midterm congressional elections, why did democratic party leaders have reason to smile?
Because the democrats had won control of the House and the Senate. Since 1994 Republicans had ruled the House and had led the Senate in all but two years (2001-2002).
Did the 2006 win clearly signal a large and stable shift in mass public support for the Democratic party?
No. In 2006, many who had voted Republican in 2002 had soured on the president and the war in Iraq. When voters favoring Democratic candidates in 2006 were asked whether they favored them because they agreed with the policies of the Democratic Party or because they wanted a change of leadership, they chose the latter by over four to one.
Why was the 2002 election unusual?
Usually, the incumbent president's party loses, not gains seats in the midterm congressional election. However in 2002, Bush's party gained members in both chambers and won the Senate. Many people who voted for Republican candidates were expressing support for the president in the war on terrorism.
Was there any evidence in the 2006 or 2002 election results that voters were becoming more attached than they were before to one party or the other?
No.
What decline poses serious challenges for our representative democracy?
The fact that political parties are weaker than they were during the period from their birth in the early 1800s to the 1960s.
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 broad so it will include both familiar and unfamiliar parties and will cover periods when a party is strong and when a party is weak.
Is a candidate's political party printed on the ballot opposite the candidate's name?
It may or may not be. In the U.S, it DOES appear on the ballot in all national elections but only a minority of municipal ones. In Australia and Israel (and Great Britain before 1969) it never appeared on the ballot at all.
Who's political parties are the oldest in the world?
America's.
True or False. America's political parties are dying.
False. They are not dead or dying, just in decline. New parties (Green party launched in 2002 by Ralph Nader) still come and go. Two old parties (Democrat and Republican) still dominate the country's campaigns and elections. Party leaders haven't been wholly replaced by media consultants, pollsters, or others whose profession is raising money or devising strategies for whichever candidates bid highest for their services.
What is one reason voter turnout is higher abroad than in America?
Political parties in other democratic nations are more effective at mobilizing voters than the ones here. The sense of being a party member and the inclination to vote the party ticket are greater in France, Italy, and Sweden than they are in the U.S.
Back in the day, what was being a Democrat or a Republican?
It was a serious commitment that people did not make lightly or abandon easily. It would have been hard to find anything in Europe that could match the vote-getting power of such party organizations as those in Chicago, NY, and Philadelphia.
Why are parties in the U.S. relatively weak today?
Mainly because the laws and rules under which they operate have taken away much of their power at the same time that many voters have lost their sense of commitment to party identification.
Why has the weakening of political parties proceeded unevenly?
Because our constitutional system has produced a decentralized governmental system, with the results that parties are strong in some places and almost nonexistent in other places.
What are the three political arenas in which parties may be found and in which changes in their strength may be assessed?
A party exists as a LABEL in the minds of the voters, as an ORGANIZATION that recruits and campaigns for candidates, and as a set of LEADERS who try to organize and control the legislative and executive branches of government.
What is a powerful party?
One whose label has a strong appeal for the voters, whose organization can decide who will be candidates and how their campaigns will be managed, and whose leaders can dominate one or all branches of government.
How have American parties become weaker as a label?
The parties are much weaker than they were in the 1800s, but only somewhat weaker than they were 40 years ago. In 1952, 36% of the electorate identified strongly as Democrats or Republicans. 23% identified as independents. By 2004, strong party identifiers were 33% and independents were 39%. In some elections many people split tickets- supporting a president from one party and members of Congress from the other.
Have political parties as a set of leaders become weaker?
Yes. However, as a set of leaders who organize government, especially Congress, parties remain somewhat strong.
Have political parties become weaker as organizations that nominate and elect candidates?
Yes, they have become dramatically weaker since the 1960s. In most states, parties have very little control over who gets nominated to office.
How are things different in Europe?
Almost the only way a person can become a candidate is to be nominated by party leaders. Campaigns are run by the party, using party funds and workers, not by the candidate. Once in office, elected officials are expected to vote and act together with other members of their party. The principal criterion by which voters choose among candidates is their party identification/label.
How have European parties been changing?
Like American parties, European parties have not been able to count as heavily as in the past on party loyalty among the voters.
What is the first factor that explains the difference between American and European political parties?
The federal system of government in the U.S. decentralizes political authority and thus decentralizes political party organizations. Most of the important governmental decisions were made at state and local levels, so that's where the important struggles over power and policy occurred. Most people with political jobs worked for state and local government, thus a party's interest in obtaining these jobs for its followers meant that it had to focus attention on who controlled city hall, the county courthouse, and the state capitol.
In short, what does federalism mean?
That political parties would acquire jobs and money from local sources and fight local contests. So, national political parties would be coalitions of local parties. Though these coalitions would have a keen interest in capturing the presidency, the national party leaders rarely had as much power as the local ones. The Republican leader of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, for example, could often ignore the decisions of the Republican national chairman and the Ohio state chairman.
Has political authority in the U.S. become more centralized?
Yes. The federal government now makes decisions affecting almost all aspects of our lives.
Have political parties become more centralized as a result?
No. If anything, parties have become even weaker and more decentralized. A reason for this is that in the U.S., unlike in most democratic nations, parties are closely regulated by state and federal laws. These regulations have had the effect of weakening the power of parties substantially. The most important of these regulations are those that prescribe how a party's candidates are to be selected.
In general, do people in the U.S. running for state or national office owe anything to the party leaders?
They owe little. In the great majority of U.S. states, the party leaders don't select people to run for office; by law those people are chosen by the voters in primary elections. Only sometimes the party can influence who will win a primary contest.
In Europe, is there a primary election?
No. The only way to become a candidate for office is to persuade party leaders to put your name on the ballot.
True or False. Direct primaries remove from the hands of the party leadership its most important source of power over officeholders.
True.
In most European nations with a parliamentary system of government, if a political party wins control of Congress, it also wins the right to select the chief executive of the government. How this different from the American system?
If an American political party wins control of Congress, it doesn't win the right to select the chief executive of the government. The American president is independently elected, and he will choose his principal subordinates not from among members of Congress but from among persons out of Congress. If he picks a representative or senator for his cabinet, the Constitution requires that person to resign from Congress in order to accept the job. An opportunity to be a cabinet secretary is not an important reward for members of Congress, so the president can't use the prospect of that reward as a way of controlling congressional action. All this weakens the significance and power of parties in terms of organizing the government and conducting its business.
What reinforces the institutional and legal factors that make American parties relatively weak?
The attitudes and traditions of American voters. American political parties have rarely played an important part in the life of the average citizen. One doesn't usually join a party here except by voting for its candidates.
Contrast the above answer with European nations.
In many European nations, large numbers of citizens will join a party, pay dues, and attend regular meetings. In countries like France, Austria, and Italy, the political parties sponsor a wide range of activities and dominate a variety of associations to which a person may belong- labor unions, youth groups, educational programs, even chess clubs.
In the U.S., do we tend to keep parties separate from other aspects of our lives?
Yes. We may become excited by a presidential campaign, and a few of us may participate in helping elect a member of Congress or state senator. But our social, business, working, cultural lives are almost entirely nonpartisan. Most Americans, unlike many Europeans, would resent partisanship's becoming a conspicuous feature of other organizations to which they belong.
What role do American parties play in our lives?
A segmental, rather than comprehensive role. Even this role is diminishing as more and more of us proclaim ourselves to be "independents."
Our nation began...
without parties.
Today's parties, though far from extinct...
are about as weak as at any time in our history.
Between the Founding and the present, parties arose and became powerful. How can we see this process?
We can see this process in four broad periods of party history: when political parties were created (from the Founding to the 1820s); when the more or less stable 2-party system emerged (from Jackson to the Civil War); when parties developed a comprehensive organizational form and appeal (from the Civil War to the 1930s); and finally when party "reform" began to alter the party system (beginning in the early 1900s but taking effect chiefly since the New Deal).
Did the Founders like parties?
No, they thought of them as "factions" motivated by ambition and self-interest. Washington, dismayed by the quarreling between Hamilton and Jefferson, devoted much of his Farewell Address to condemning parties.
Why was the hostility toward parties understandable?
The legitimacy and success of the newly created federal government were still very much in doubt. When Jefferson organized his followers to oppose Hamilton's policies, it seemed to Hamilton and his followers that Jefferson was opposing not just a policy of a leader but the very concept of a national government. Jefferson thought Hamilton was not simply pursuing bad policies, but was subverting the Constitution itself. The ability to make that distinction was slow in coming, and thus parties were objects of profound suspicion.
What was the first organized political party in American history?
It was made up of the followers of Jefferson, who, beginning in the 1790s, called themselves Republicans, hoping to suggest that their opponents were secret monarchists.
What did the followers of Hamilton call themselves?
Federalists, which had once been used to refer to all supporters of the new Constitution. They hoped to imply that their opponents were "Antifederalists," or enemies of the Constitution.
What were these parties?
Loose caucuses of political notables in various localities.
What were New England and the South?
New England was strongly Federalist. The South was strongly Republican.
What did Jefferson and his ally Madison think their Republican Party was?
A temporary arrangement designed to defeat John Adams, a Federalist in 1796. But Adams won and Jefferson had the 2nd most electoral votes so he became VP. In 1800 Adams's bid to succeed himself intensified party activity even more. This time Jefferson won.
When Jefferson was president, what did the Federalists fear?
That Jefferson would dismantle the Constitution. However Jefferson adopted a conciliatory posture, saying in his inaugural address that "we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." This was expressive of the need that every president has to persuade the public that, despite partisan politics, the presidency exists to serve all the people.
Was what Jefferson said in his inaugural address true?
No. The Federalists detested Jefferson, and some were planning to have New England secede from the Union.
How successful were the Republicans?
So successful that the Federalists ceased to exist as a party. Jefferson was reelected in 1804 with almost no opposition. Madison easily won 2 terms. Monroe carried 16/19 states in 1816 and was reelected without opposition in 1820. Political parties had seemingly disappeared, just as Jefferson had hoped.
What can the weakness of this first party system be explained by?
The fact that it was the first: Nobody had been born a Federalist or a Republican; there was no ancestral party loyalty to defend; the earliest political leaders didn't think of themselves as professional politicians; and the Federalist party had such a limited sectional and class base that it couldn't compete effectively in national elections.
The parties that existed in the early years were...
essentially small groups of local notables. Political participation was limited, and nominations for most local offices were arranged casually.
Did the parties in the early period represent clear, homogeneous economic interests?
No. Farmers in VA were Republicans but farmers in Delaware were Federalists. The commercial interests of Boston were Federalist, but commercial leaders in urban CT were Republican. From the beginning to the present elections have created heterogeneous coalitions.
What was the distinctive feature of the second party system?
Political participation became a mass phenomenon. The number of voters to be reached had become quite large. In 1824, 365,000 popular votes were cast. As a result of laws that enlarged the number of people eligible to vote and of an increase in the population, in 1828 over a million votes were cast. In 1840, over 2 million. By 1832, presidential electors were selected by popular vote in virtually every state. Presidential politics had become a truly national, genuinely popular activity; in many communities election campaigns had become the principal public spectacle.
In England in 1840, how many eligible voters were there?
650,000.
As late as what year were presidential electors chosen by the state legislatures in about half the states?
1816.
How was the party system of the Jacksonian era built and what change illustrated this transformation?
From the bottom up rather than-as during the Founding-from the top down. The abandonment of the system of having caucuses composed of members of Congress nominate presidential candidates.
What was the caucus system?
An effort to unite the legislative and executive branches by giving the former some degree of control over who would have a chance to capture the latter.
When did the caucus system become unpopular?
When the caucus candidate for president in 1824 ran third in a field of four in the general election. It was completely discredited that same year when Congress denied the presidency to Jackson, the candidate with the greatest share of the popular vote.
What replaced the caucus?
The party convention.
Describe some early party conventions.
1st Convention: Anti-Masonic party in 1831. 1st convention of a major political party: Anti-Jackson Republicans in 1831, nominated Henry Clay. Democrats held a convention in 1832 that ratified Jackson's nomination for reelection and picked Martin Van Buren as his running mate. The first convention to select a man who would be elected president and who wasn't already the incumbent president was held by the Democrats in 1836, it chose Van Buren.
What was the national nominating convention first developed as?
A reform-a way of allowing for some measure of local control over the nominating process. Virtually no other nation adopted this method, just as no other nation was later to adopt the direct primary after the convention system became the object of criticism.
What caused the party system created in the Jacksonian period to divide and give way to new parties?
The Democrats (followers of Jackson) and Whigs (opponents of Jackson) were fairly evenly balanced in most regions, but they could not withstand the split in opinion created by the agitation over slavery. Both parties tried to straddle the issue, since neither wanted to divide its followers and thus lose the election to its rival. But slavery and sectionalism could not be straddled. The old parties divided and new ones emerged.
How did the modern Republican party emerge?
It began as a third party. As a result of the Civil War, it became a major party (the only third party to gain major-party status). It dominated national politics for 3/4 of a century.
What two events gave Republicans a marked advantage in the competition for the loyalties of voters?
1. The Civil War. This deeply polarized popular attitudes. Those who supported the Union side became, for generations, Republicans; those who supported the Confederacy (opposed the war) became Democrats. This partisan division was nearly even. The Republicans usually won the presidency and Senate, and lost control of the House. There were many northern Democrats. 2. But in 1896 the presidential candidacy of William Jennings Bryan further strengthened the Republicans. Bryan, a Democrat, alienated many voters in the populous northeastern states while attracting voters in the South and Midwest. This deepened the split in the country especially North and South. From 1896 to the 1930s, northern states were solidly Republican, southern ones solidly Democratic.
What effect did this split have on the organization of political parties?
It meant that most states were one-party states. Competition for office at the state level had to go on within a single dominant party. There emerged two major factions within each party, but especially within the Republican party. One was the party regulars-the professional politicians, the "stalwarts," the Old Guard. The other faction was the mugwumps or progressives or reformers.
Describe the stalwarts of the Republican party.
They were preoccupied with building up the party machinery, developing party loyalty, and acquiring and dispensing patronage for themselves and their followers. Their great skills were in organization, negotiation, bargaining, and compromise; their great interest was in winning.
Describe the mugwumps of the Republican party.
They were opposed to heavy emphasis on patronage, disliked party machinery, because it permitted only bland candidates to rise to the top, were fearful of the heavy influx of immigrants into American cities and of the ability of the party regulars to organize them into "machines", and wanted to see the party take unpopular positions on certain issues (like free trade). Their great skills lay in the areas of advocacy and articulation; their great interest was in principle.
What did the mugwumps try to do?
At first, they tried to play a balance-of-power role, sometimes siding with the Republican party of which they were members, at other times defecting to the Democrats (like when they bolted the Republican party to support Cleveland, the Democratic nominee, in 1884). But later, as Republican strength in the nation grew, progressives within that party became less and less able to play a balance-of-power role. By 1880 the South had become so Democratic that the Republican party had virtually ceased to exist. If the progressives were to have any power, it would require an attack on the concept of partisanship itself.
During the Era of reform, what did Progressives begin to do?
They espoused measures to curtail or even abolish political parties. They favored primary elections to replace nominating conventions, because the latter were viewed as being manipulated by party bosses; they favored nonpartisan elections at the city level and sometimes at the state level too; they argued against corrupt alliances between parties and businesses. They wanted strict voter-registration requirements that would reduce voting fraud. They pressed for civil service to eliminate patronage; they made heavy use of the mass media as a way of attacking the abuses of partisanship and of promoting their own ideas and candidacies.
Where were some places the progressives were successful?
In CA, progressives led by governor Hiram Johnson in 1910-1911 were able to institute the direct primary and to adopt procedures so that citizens could vote directly on proposed legislation, thereby bypassing the state legislation (initiative and referendum). Governor Robert La Follette brought about similar changes in WI.
What were the effects of the progressives' changes?
To reduce substantially the worst forms of political corruption and ultimately to make boss rule in politics difficult, if not impossible. They made political parties weaker and less able to assemble the power necessary for governing the fragmented political institutions created by the Constitution. In Congress, party lines began to grow fainter, as did the power of congressional leadership.
What did the progressives not have an answer to?
If there is not a strong political party, by what other means will candidates for office be found, recruited, and supported?
Critical or Realigning Periods.
During such periods a sharp, lasting shift occurs in the popular coalition supporting one or both parties. The issues that separate the two parties change, and so the kinds of voters supporting each party change. This shift may occur at the time of the election or just after, as the new administration draws in new supporters.
What has happened in the twentieth century?
For long periods we haven't so much had close competition between two parties as we have had an alternation of dominance by one party and then the other.
How many realignments has there been and when were they?
5, during or just after these elections: 1800 (when the Jeffersonian Republicans defeated the Federalists), 1828 (when the Jacksonian Democrats came to power), 1860 (when the Whig Party collapsed and the Republicans under Lincoln came to power), 1896 (when the Republicans defeated William Jennings Bryan), and 1932 (when the Democrats under Roosevelt came into office). The three clearest cases are 1860, 1896, 1932.
Describe the two kinds of realignments.
One in which a major party is so badly defeated that it disappears and a new party emerges to take its place (this happened to the Federalists in 1800 and to the Whigs in 1856-1860). And another in which the two existing parties continue but voters shift their support from one to the other (this happened in 1896 and 1932).
Describe the 1860 realignment.
The existing parties could no longer straddle the fence on the slavery issue. The Republican party was formed in 1856, on the basis of opposing slavery. The Democratic party split in half in 1860, with one part (led by Stephen A. Douglas in the North) waffling on the issue and the other (led by John C. Breckinridge and drawing its support from the South) denying that any government had any right to outlaw slavery. The remnants of the Whig party, renamed the Constitutional Union party, tried to unite the nation by writing no platform at all, thus remaining silent on slavery. Lincoln (Republican) won in 1860 and Breckinridge (proslavery Democrat) came in second. From that moment on, the two major political parties acquired different sources of support and stood for different principles. The parties that had straddled the fence were eliminated. The Civil War fixed these new party loyalties deep in the popular mind, and the structure of party competition was set for nearly 40 years.
Describe the 1896 realignment.
Economics was at issue. Depressions during the 1880s and 1890s fell hard on farmers in the Midwest and parts of the South. The prices paid to farmers for their commodities had been falling since the Civil War, making it hard to pay their bills. The two major parties were straddling the issue, which led to the formation of parties of economic protest-the Greenbackers and the Populists. Populists tended to be fundamentalist Protestants; urban voters were Catholic. In 1896 Bryan got the Democratic nomination for president and made the party adopt a Populist platform. Anti-Bryan democrats deserted the party and voted for the republican, McKinley. The Republicans stood for industry, business, hard money, protective tariffs, and urban interests. The Democrats were for farmers, small towns, low tariffs, and rural interests. The Republicans won. The old split between North and South was somewhat replaced by East and West, city and farm split. It was not only an economic cleavage, Republicans had been able to appeal to Catholics and Lutherans, who disliked fundamentalism and its hostility toward liquor and immigrants.
Describe the 1932 realignment.
Change was triggered by an economic depression. The New Deal coalition that emerged was based on bringing together into the Democratic party urban workers, northern blacks, southern whites, and Jewish voters. This wasn't preceded by any third-party movement; it occurred suddenly and gathered great momentum throughout the 1930s. The Democrats, isolated since 1896 as a southern and midwestern sectional party, had now become the majority party by finding a candidate and a cause that could lure urban workers, blacks, and Jews away from the Republican party, where they had been for decades. It was a delicate coalition; blacks and southern whites disagreed on practically everything except their liking for Roosevelt. But the federal government under Roosevelt was able to supply enough benefits to each of these disparate groups to keep them loyal members of the coalition and provide a new basis for party identification.
What may these critical elections have involved?
Not converting existing voters to new parties, but recruiting into the dominant party new voters-young people, immigrants just receiving their citizen papers, blacks just receiving the right to vote. However there were genuine conversions-like northern blacks flipping from Republican to Democratic in the 1932 election.
When does an electoral realignment occur?
When a new issue of utmost importance to voters (slavery, the economy) cuts across existing party divisions and replaces old issues that were formerly the basis of party identification.
Why did some people wonder if the election of 1980 was a realignment election?
Because it brought into power the most conservative administration in half a century. Many of Reagan's supporters began talking of their having a "mandate" to adopt major new policies in keeping with the views of the "new majority." However Reagan won in 1980 less because of what he stood for than because he wasn't Jimmy Carter, and he was reelected in 1984 primarily because people were satisfied with how the country was doing, especially economically.
Because we have had periods of one-party dominance in the past, does that mean we will have them in the future?
No. Some scholars are even beginning to question the theory that critical elections occur with some regularity.
Why couldn't Reagan's election have been traditional realignment?
Because it left Congress in the hands of the Democratic party.
What one major change has occurred as of late?
The shift in the presidential voting patterns of the South. From 1972 to 2004 the South was more Republican than the nation as a whole. The proportion of white southerners describing themselves as "strongly Democratic" fell from more than 1/3 in 1952 to 1/7 in 1984. There has also been an increase in "independents." Southern white democrats independents have voted overwhelmingly Republican in recent presidential elections. If you lump independents together with the parties for which they actually vote, the party alignment among white southerners has gone from 6:1 Democratic in 1952 to about 50:50 Democrats and Republicans. If this continues, it will constitute a major realignment in a region of the country that is growing rapidly in population and political clout.
Why is there a possibility that dramatic realignments may not occur again?
Because party labels have lost their meaning for a growing number of voters. For these people politics may dealign rather than realign.
Split Ticket.
Voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election.
Straight Ticket.
Voting for candidates who are all of the same party.
Describe the rise and fall of split-ticket voting.
Split-ticket voting rose between 1952 and 1972, and hovered around 25% until it declined somewhat after 1992. In 1988, more than half of all House democrats were elected in districts that voted for H.W. Bush for president. This was the greatest in the South. If every district that voted for Bush had also elected a Republican to Congress, the Republicans would have a 2:1 majority in the House. Ticket splitting helped the Democrats keep control of the House from 1954 to 1994.
Why was ticket splitting almost unheard of during the 1800s?
Back then, the voter was either given a ballot by the party of his choice and he dropped it, intact, into the ballot box, or he was given a government-printed ballot that listed in columns all the candidates of each party. All the voter had to do was mark the top of one column in order to vote for every candidate in that column.
What did progressives do to change this?
Progressives began to persuade states to adopt the office-bloc (MA ) ballot instead of the party-column (IN) ballot. The office-bloc ballot lists all candidates by office; there is no way to vote a straight party ticket by making one mark. States using the office-bloc ballot show much more ticket splitting than those without it.
Why would it be a mistake to conclude that parties have declined simply because many voters now split tickets in national elections?
Despite many changes and challenges, America's two-party system remains strong. In most elections, registered Democrats vote for Democrats and registered Republicans vote for Republicans. In Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, members still normally vote along party lines.
Local political machines have died but...
national party structures remain alive and well.
What is the difference between political parties that exist at national, state, and local levels?
At each level a separate and almost entirely independent organization exists that does pretty much what it wants, and in many countries and cities there is virtually no organization at all.
National Convention.
A meeting of party delegates held every four years.
On paper, what do the national Democratic and Republican parties look like?
In both parties, the ultimate authority is in the hands of the national convention that meets every four years to nominate a presidential candidate. Between these conventions party affairs are managed by a national committee, made up of delegates from each state and territory. In Congress, each party has a congressional campaign committee that helps members of Congress who are running for reelection or would-be members running for an open seat or challenging a candidate from the opposing party. The day-to-day work of the party is managed by a full-time, paid national chairman, who is elected by the committee.
What did the national chairman do?
If his party held the White House, he would help decide who among the party faithfuls would get federal jobs. Otherwise the parties did very little.
For a long time the two national parties were alike in behavior...
as well as description.
How did national parties start changing?
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Republicans began to convert their national party into a well-financed, highly staffed organization devoted to finding and electing Republican candidates. At the same time, Democrats began changing the rules governing how presidential candidates are nominated in ways that altered the distribution of power within the party. So, the Republicans became a bureaucratized party and the Democrats became a factionalized one. After Republicans won 4/5 of the presidential elections between 1968 and 1984 and briefly took control of the Senate, the Democrats made an effort to emulate the Republicans.
How had Republicans taken advantage of a new bit of technology?
They used computerized mailings. They built up a huge file of names of people who had given or might give money to the party, usually in small amounts, and used that list to raise a big budget. The RNC used this money to run, in effect, a national political consulting firm. Money went to recruit and train Republican candidates, give them legal and financial advice, study issues and analyze voting trends, and conduct national advertising campaigns.
How did the DNC decide to play catch-up?
It followed the RNC strategy. Using the same computerized direct-mail techniques the Democratic party committees-the National Committee, Senatorial Committee, and Congressional Committee-raised more money than they had ever raised before, but not as much as the Republicans. The Democrats, like the Republicans, ship a lot of their national party money to state organizations to finance t.v. ads supporting their parties.
What has happened despite recent enactment of campaign finance laws?
In 2004 both Democrats and Republicans redoubled efforts to raise soft money, funds to aid parties. In the Democratic presidential primary, Howard Dean raised $30 million over the Internet with average contributions under $100. In 2006, new records were set for spending on congressional races. In 39 House races, challengers raised over $1 million. 30 of these "million-dollar challengers" were Democrats.
Who selects the time and place of the next national convention and issues a "call" for the convention that sets forth the number of delegates each state and territory is to have and also the rules under which delegates must be chosen?
The national committee.
Why is the number of delegates and their manner of selection given considerable attention?
Because they can significantly influence the chances of various presidential candidates. In the Democratic Party, a long struggle took place between those who wished to see southern states receive a large share of delegates, in recognition of their firm support of Democratic candidates in presidential elections, and those who preferred to see a larger share of delegates allotted to northern and western states, which, though less solidly Democratic, were larger or more liberal. A similar conflict within the Republican party has pitted conservative Republican leaders in the Midwest against liberal ones in the East.
What is a sign of the tendency of the two parties' conventions to move in opposite ideological directions-Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right?
When choosing delegates, a compromise formula is chosen. But usually these formulas have gradually changed over the years, shifting strength in the Democratic convention away from the South and toward the North and West and in the Republican convention away from the East and toward the South and Southwest.
Describe the formula for apportioning delegates.
The exact formula is very complex. For the Democrats it takes into account the vote each state cast for Democratic candidates in past elections and the number of electoral votes of each state. For the Republicans it takes into account the number of representatives in Congress and whether the state in past elections cast its electoral votes for the Republican presidential candidate and elected Republicans to the Senate, the House, and the governorship. The Democrats give extra delegates to large states, while the Republicans give extra delegates to loyal states.
What is usually more important that the delegates' allocation?
The way in which delegates are chosen.
How did the Democrats change the way in which delegates are chosen?
Beginning in 1972, the Democrats developed an elaborate set of rules designed to weaken the control over delegates by local party leaders and to increase the proportion of women, young people, blacks, and Native Americans attending the convention. These rules were first drafted by a party commission chaired by Senator George McGovern (who later used these new procedures to get a successful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination). In 1974 they were revised by another commission, chaired by Barbara Mikulski. After the 1976 election, a third commission, chaired by Morley Winograd, produced another revision of the rules, which took place in 1980. A fourth commission, chaired by NC governor James B. Hunt, recommended in 1981 another set of rules, which became effective with the 1984 convention.
What was the general thrust of the work of the first three rules commissions?
To broaden the antiparty changes started by the progressives at the beginning of the 1900s. Earlier reformers had tried to minimize the role of parties in the election process. Reformers of the 1970s sought to weaken the influence of leaders within the party. The newer reforms were aimed at creating intraparty democracy as well as interparty democracy.
What were some rules for the 1980 convention?
They required: 1. Equal division of delegates between men and women. 2. Establishment of "goals" for the representation of blacks, Hispanics, and other groups in proportion to their presence in a state's Democratic electorate. 3. Open delegate selection procedures, with advance publicity and written rules. 4. Selection of 75% of the delegates at the level of the congressional district or lower. 5. No "unit rule" that would require all delegates to vote with the majority of their state delegation. 6. Restrictions on the number of party leaders and elected officials who could vote at the convention. 7. All delegates that pledged to a candidate must vote for that candidate.
How did the 1981 Hunt commission change some of these rules?
They changed them in order to increase the influence of elected officials and to make the convention a somewhat more deliberative body. 1. The commission reserved about 14% of the delegate seats for party leaders and elected officials, who wouldn't have to commit themselves in advance to a presidential candidate. 2. The commission repealed the rule requiring that delegates pledged to a candidate vote for that candidate.
Superdelegates.
Party leaders and elected officials who become delegates to the national convention without having to run in primaries or caucuses.
Who was the chief beneficiary of the delegate selection rules?
Walter Mondale. He won the support of the overwhelming majority of superdelegates and did especially well in those states that held winner-take-all primaries.
What are some of the more profound consequences that the reform of the parties has had?
Before 1968, the Republican party represented white-collar voters and the Democratic party represented blue-collar voters. After a decade of reform, the Republican and Democratic parties each represented two ideologically different sets of upper-middle-class voters. The Republicans came to represent the more conservative wing of the traditional middle class and the Democrats the more leftist wing of the liberal middle class.
Why did this representation of the parties being two ideologically different sets of upper-middle class voters troubling to Democrats?
Because the traditional middle class is somewhat closer to the opinions of most citizens than is the liberal middle class (so the Republican national convention more closely reflected public opinion than did the Democratic national convention). The Republicans also won 5/6 of the presidential races between 1968 and 1988.
What did the Democrats do before the 1988 convention?
They reviewed their party procedures. Under the leadership of DNC chairman Paul Kirk, they decided against making any major changes, especially those that would increase the power of grassroots activists at the expense of elected officials and party leaders. The number of superdelegates was increased. 80% of the Democratic members of Congress and all Democratic governors were automatically made convention delegates in 1988. The official status of some special-interest caucuses (like different ethnic groups) was reduced in order to lessen the perception that the Democrats were simply a party of factions.
What did activists, like supporters of Jesse Jackson protest?
The new Democratic convention rules made it harder for candidates (like Jackson) to win delegates in proportion to their share of the primary vote. Ex: In 1984, Jackson got 18% of the primary vote but only 12% of the delegates.
How did the DNC change the rules in response to this?
They changed the rules for the 1992 campaign. DNC chairman Robert H. Brown won approval for 3 requirements: 1. The winner-reward systems of delegate distribution, which gave the winner of a primary our caucus extra delegates, was banned. (In 1988 15 states used winner-reward system). 2. The proportional representation system was put into use. This system divides a state's publicly elected delegates among candidates who receive at least 15% of the vote. 3. States that violate the rules are now penalized with the loss of 25% of their national convention delegates.
True or False. The conventions of both parties haven't changed.
False. The conventions of both parties have changed fundamentally and probably permanently.
How have the conventions changed?
Delegates once selected by party leaders are now chosen by primary elections and grassroots caucuses. So, the conventions are no longer places where party leaders meet to bargain over the selection of their presidential candidates; they are instead places where delegates come together to ratify choices already made by party activists and primary voters.
What instincts might mislead us into supposing that anything carried out in the name of reform is a good idea?
Most Americans dislike bosses, deals, and manipulation and prefer democracy, reform, and openness. Rules must be judged by their practical results as well as by their conformity to some principle of fairness. Rules affect the distribution of power: they help some people win and others lose.
While the national party structures have changed....
the grassroots organizations have withered. In between, state party systems have struggled to redefine their roles.
Describe the state-level organization of the Democratic and Republican parties.
In every state there is a Democratic and Republican state party organized under state law. Usually, each consists of a state central committee, below which are county committees and sometimes city, town, or precinct committees. The members of these committees can be chosen in primary elections, or conventions, or by a building-block process where people elected to serve on precinct or town committees choose the members of county committees, who choose the members of state committees.
Who is in charge of these committees?
In a few places, strong party bosses handpick the members; sometimes powerful elected officials, like judges, key state legislators, or county sheriffs control the committees. In many places no one is in charge, so that the party structure is largely meaningless or it is made up of the representatives of various local factions.
What do different incentives lead to?
Different ways of organizing parties.
Political Machine.
A party organization that recruits members by dispensing patronage (tangible incentives-like money, political jobs, an opportunity to get favors from government) and that is characterized by a high degree of leadership control over member activity. At one time many local party organizations were machines, and the struggle over political jobs-patronage-was a chief concern for their members.
How did Tammany Hall in NYC begin?
As a caucus of well-to-do notables in the local democratic party. But by the late 1800s, it had become a machine organized on the basis of political clubs in each assembly district. These clubs were composed of party workers whose job it was to get out the straight party vote in their election districts and who hoped for a tangible reward if they were successful.
During the 1870s in NYC, how many voters had a federal, state, or city job?
1 out of every 8 voters.
What were some of the government jobs that were given as rewards?
The New York Customhouse employed thousands of people, virtually all of whom were replaced if their party lost the presidential election. The postal system was another.
What did James N. Tyner say when he became postmaster general in 1876?
He was "appointed not to see that the mails were carried, but to see that Indiana was carried."
How often were conventions and elections?
So frequent and the intensity of party competition was so great that being a party worker was a full-time occupation for many.
Before the arrival of poor immigrants, what had old-stock Americans done?
They had perfected the machine, run up the cost of government, and systematized voting fraud. Kickbacks on contracts, payments extracted from officeholders, and funds raised from business people made some politicians rich but also paid the huge bills of the elaborate party organization.
What happened when the immigrants began flooding the Eastern cities?
The party machines were there to provide them with all manner of services in exchange for their votes.
True or False. The machines were a vast welfare organization operating before the creation of the welfare state.
True.
How were the abuses of the machine curtailed?
Stricter voter registration laws reduced fraud. Civil service reforms cut down the number of patronage jobs. Competitive-bidding laws made it harder to award overpriced contracts to favored businesses. The Hatch Act made it illegal for federal civil service employees to take an active part in political management or political campaigns by serving as party officers, soliciting campaign funds, running for partisan office, working in a partisan campaign, endorsing partisan candidates, taking voters to the polls, counting ballots, circulating nominating petitions, or being delegates to a party convention. They can still make campaign contributions.
What did these restrictions do?
They gradually took federal employees out of machine politics, but they didn't end the machines. In many cities-Chicago, Philadelphia, and Albany-ways were found to maintain the machines even though city employees were under the civil service.
What weakened the machines besides progressive reforms?
Changes among voters. As voters grew in education, income, and sophistication, they depended less and less on the advice and leadership of local party officials. And as the federal government created a bureaucratic welfare system, the parties' welfare systems declined in value.
What were the political machines?
A frank recognition of the fact that politics requires organization; the machine was the supreme expression of the value of organization.
What mobilizes voters more than a t.v. or good government associations?
Party machines.
Because party machines were interested in winning, what would they do?
They would subordinate any other consideration to that end. They were usually willing to support the presidential candidate with the best chance of winning, regardless of his policy views (unless he was determined to wreck the machines).
Who did machines help elect?
Republican machines helped elect Lincoln and Harding. Democratic machines helped elect FDR and JFK.
Where can the old-style machine be found?
It is almost extinct; but in the Democratic organization in Cook County (Chicago) and the Republican organization in Nassau County (New York).
What is the new-style machine like?
It is a machine in the sense that it uses money to knit together many politicians, but it is new in that the money doesn't come from patronage and contracts but from campaign contributions supplied by wealthy individuals and the proceeds of direct-mail campaigns.
What is an example of this new-style machine?
The political organization headed by Democratic congressmen Henry A. Waxman and Howard L. Berman in L.A. By the use of campaign funds, the "Waxman-Berman organization" builds loyalties to it among a variety of elected officials at all levels of government. However this new machine has a strong interest in issues, especially at the national level, unlike the old one. In this sense, it isn't a machine at all, but a cross between a machine and an ideological party.
What are some differences between the machine and the ideological party?
Where the machine values winning above all else, the ideological party values principle above all else. Where the former depends on money incentives, the latter spurns them. Where the former is hierarchical and disciplined, the latter is contentious and factionalized.
Who have been the most firmly ideological parties?
Independent "third parties."
Have there been ideological factions within the Democratic and Republican parties?
Yes, and in some places these ideological groups have taken over the regular parties.
Describe ideological groups in the 1950s and 1960s.
They were "reform clubs" within local Democratic and Republican parties. In L.A., NY, and many parts of WI and MN, issue-oriented activists fought to take over the party from election-oriented regulars. Democratic reform clubs defeated Tammany Hall in Manhattan; similar activist groups became the dominant force in CA state politics. Democrat club leaders were more liberal than rank-and-file Democrats, and Republican club leaders were conservative than rank-and-file Republicans.
What happened in the 1960s and 1970s?
These "reform" movements were replaced by more focused social movements. The "reform" movement was based on a generalized sense of liberalism (among Democrats) or conservatism (among Republicans). With the advent of social movements like civil rights, peace, feminism, environmentalism, libertarianism, and abortion, the generalized ideology of the clubs was replaced by the specific ideological demands of single-issue activists.
What is the result?
In many places the party has become a collection of people drawn from various social movements. For a candidate to win a party's support, he or she often has to satisfy the "litmus test" demands of the ideological activists in the party.
What did Democratic senator Barbara Mikulski say?
"The social movements are now our farm clubs."
With social movements as their farm clubs, how are the big-league teams (the Democrats and Republicans at the state level) behaving differently than they did when the political machines were the farm clubs?
Internal factionalism is more intense, and the freedom of action of the party leader has been greatly reduced. A leader who demands too little or gives up too much, or who says the wrong thing on a key issue, is quickly accused of having "sold out." Many "leaders" are that in name only.
Why do many people who participate in state politics do it?
Not in order to earn money or vindicate some cause, but because they find it fun. They meet interesting people, they like the sense of being in the know and rubbing shoulders with the powerful.
Solidary Incentives.
The social rewards (sense of pleasure, status, or companionship) that lead people to join political organizations.
How could a machine become a solidary group?
When a machine loses its patronage, some of its members may continue to serve in the organization out of a desire for camaraderie.
How else can solidary groups be formed?
Precinct, ward, and district committees are built up on the basis of friendship networks. One study of political activists in Detroit found that most of them mentioned friendship and a liking for politics, rather than an interest in issues, as their reasons for joining the party organization. Members of ward and town organizations in St. Louis County gave the same answers.
Why have the motivations for participating in politics become like those for joining a bowling league or bridge club?
Because patronage has declined in value and the appeals of ideology are limited to a minority of citizens.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to solidary groups?
They are neither corrupt nor inflexible. But they often don't work very hard.
Sponsored Party.
A local or state political party that is largely supported by another organization in the community. This occurs when another organization exists in the community that can create, or sponsor, a local party structure.
What is an example of a sponsored party?
The Democratic party in and around Detroit has been developed, led, and to a degree financed by the political-action arm of the United Auto Workers union. By the mid-1950s union members and leaders made up over 3/4 of all the Democratic party district leaders within the city. On election day union funds were available for paying workers to canvass voters. Between elections political work on an unpaid basis was expected of union leaders.
Why was it not hard for the UAW to organize voters?
The UAW has had a long tradition of rank-and-file activism, stemming from its formative struggles in the 1930s, and since the city is virtually a one-industry town, it wasn't hard to transfer some of this activism from union organizing to voter organizing.
Has the UAW-Democratic party alliance in Detroit been successful?
Not always in city elections (the city is nonpartisan). But it has been quite successful in carrying the city for the Democratic party in state and national elections.
Why aren't sponsored local parties common in the U.S.?
Not many areas have organizations as effective or as dominant as the UAW that can bolster, sponsor, or even take over the weak formal party structure.
What is a personal following?
The political support provided to a candidate on the basis of personal popularity and networks. They will work for him during the campaign and then disband until the next election rolls around.
Why might a person wanting to get elected try to form a personal following?
Because most candidates can no longer count on the backing of a machine, because sponsored parties are limited to a few unionized areas, and because solidary groups aren't always productive.
What might a candidate try to meld a personal following with?
With an ideological group, especially during the primary election campaign, when the candidates need the kind of financial backing and hard work that only highly motivated activists are likely to supply.
To form a personal following, what must a candidate have?
An appealing personality, a lot of friends, or a big bank account.
What are some examples of personal followings?
The Kennedy's. The electoral success of the personal following of JFK, Ted Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Joseph P. Kennedy II are legendary. H.W. Bush also established such a following. After he left office, Jeb became governor of FL and W. Bush became governor of TX and 43rd president of the U.S.
Who have become grandmasters at building personal followings?
Southern politicians who have to operate in one-party states with few, if any, machines. Ex: Talmadge family in GA, Long family in Louisiana, and the Byrd family in VA. The strategy is followed wherever party organization is weak.
What is the key asset of getting a personal following?
Have a known political name. That has helped the electoral victories of Hubert Humphrey in MN, the son and daughter of Pat Brown in CA, the son of Birch Bayh in IN, the son of George Wallace in AL, and the son and grandson of Robert La Follette in WI.
According to David Mayhew, by the mid-1980s, where did the traditional party organization-one that is hierarchical, lasting, based on material incentives, and capable of influencing who gets nominated for office-exist?
In only 8 states, mostly the older states of the Northeast. Another 5 states had faction-ridden versions of the traditional party organization. The rest of the states displayed the weak party system of solidary clubs, personal followings, ideological groups, and sponsored parties.
What were the composition of the Democratic National conventions like?
In 1984, over half of the delegates were drawn from the ranks of the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women. By 2004, both national party organizations and their conventions had been dominated for at least two decades by ideological groups.
Why is it remarkable that we have had only two major political parties for most of our history?
We have so many different varieties of local party organizations, and a great range of opinion found within each party. By estimate, only 15 countries in the world have a two-party system. Most European democracies are multiparty systems.
Two-Party System.
An electoral system with two dominant parties that compete in national elections. We have only two parties with any chance of winning nationally.
Have our two major parties been evenly balanced over time?
Yes. Between 1888 and 2004, the Republicans won 17 presidential elections and the Democrats 13. Whenever one party has received a temporary ascendancy and its rival has been pronounced dead, the "dead" party has displayed remarkable powers of recuperation, coming back to win important victories.
Are the parties evenly balanced at state and congressional levels?
No. For a long time, the South was so heavily Democratic at all levels of government as to be a one-party area, while upper New England and the Dakotas were strongly Republican. All regions are more competitive today. Parties aren't as competitive in state elections as they are in presidential ones. States have rarely had, at least for any extended period, political parties other than the Democratic and Republican.
Plurality System.
An electoral system in which the winner is the person who gets the most votes, even if he or she doesn't receive a majority; used in almost all American elections.
How does France choose its national legislature?
In the first election candidates for parliament who win an absolute majority of the votes cast are declared elected. A week later remaining candidates who received at least 1/8, but less than 1/2 of the vote go into a runoff election; those who then win an absolute majority are also declared elected.
What is the difference between the French method and the American plurality system in regards to parties?
The French method encourages many political parties to form, each hoping to win at least 1/8 of the vote in the first election and then to enter into an alliance with its ideologically nearest rival in order to win the runoff. In the U.S., the plurality system means that a party must make all the alliances it can before the first election. Hence every party must be as broadly based as possible; a narrow, minor party has no hope of winning.
Describe the difference between European and American elections.
In the U.S., only one member of Congress is elected from each district. In many European countries the elections are based on proportional representation. Each party submits a list of candidates for parliament, ranked in order of preference by the party leaders. The nation votes. A party winning 37% of the vote gets 37% of the seats in parliament; a party winning 2% of the vote gets 2% of the seats. Since even the smallest parties have a chance of winning something, minor parties have an incentive to organize.
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...