c


Ê

Ê 

   [


This chapter examines political parties, with an emphasis on the two-party system that has evolved in
the United States. After reading and reviewing the material in this chapter, the student should be able to
do each of the following: [


1. Define the term d

d and contrast the structures of European and American parties, [

paying particular attention to the federal structure of the U.S. system and the concept of party
identification.
2. Trace the development of the U.S. party system through its four periods. Explain why parties have [

been in decline since the New Deal.
3. Describe the structure of a major party. Distinguish major from minor parties. [


4. Indicate whether there are major differences between the parties. Describe some of the issue [

differences between delegates at Democratic and Republican conventions, and compare their
policy positions with those of rank-and-file party members.
[


  
A political party exists in three arenas: among the voters who psychologically identify with it, as a
grassroots organization staffed and led by activists, and as a group of elected officials who seek to act
on its ideals. This chapter studies the party primarily as an organization that takes various forms at the
local level. These include the political machine, the ideological party, the solidary group, the sponsored
party, and the personal following.
National parties are weak coalitions of these local forums. As organizations that influence the political
systems, parties are becoming even weaker. Voters no longer strongly identify with one of the major
parties. The spread of the direct primary has made it harder for parties to control who is nominated for
elective office, thus making it harder for the parties to influence the behavior of officeholders they once
elected. Delegate selection rules, especially in the Democratic Party, have contributed to shifting the
center of power away from officeholders and party regulars and toward the parties¶ more ideological
wings.
Minor parties have arisen from time to time, but the only ones that have affected the outcome of
presidential elections have been those that began as splinter groups within one of the major parties. An
example of such a party is the Bull Moose Progressives. The two-party system is maintained, and minor
parties are discouraged, by an election system of winner-take-all, plurality elections. This arrangement
makes voters fear that they will ³waste´ their vote if they vote for a minor party. Meanwhile, the
primary system makes it possible for minor parties to wield influence through the major parties.


 c
   

[

#
Ê 
    
 
[

#
I. Parties²in the United States and abroad
[

#
A. Decentralization
1. A party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them [

#
with a label (party identification) by which they are known to the electorate. [

#
2. Arenas of politics in which parties exist: [

#
a) Label in the minds of the voters
[

#
b) Organization recruiting and campaigning for candidates
c) Set of leaders organizing and trying to control the legislative and executive [

#

branches [

#
3. U.S. parties have become weaker in all three arenas. [

#
a) As label, because there are more independents and more split-ticket voting [

#
b) As set of leaders, though, parties are still somewhat strong.
[

#
c) As organizations, parties have become weaker since 1960s
B. Reasons American and European parties are different [

#
1. European parties are disciplined gatekeepers, to which voters are very loyal, though [

#
this has been declining recently. [

#
2. Federal system decentralizes power in United States.
[

#
a) Early in U.S. history, the most important government decisions were made by the
state and local governments, and this is where most of the political jobs were. [

#
b) National parties in those times were coalitions of local parties. [

#
c) As political power became more centralized, parties became even more [

#
decentralized and weaker.
[

#
3. Parties closely regulated by state and federal laws, which weaken them
4. Candidates are now chosen through primaries, not by party leaders. [

#

5. President elected separately from Congress, and presidential appointees are drawn [

#
from many sources. [

#
II. The rise and decline of the political party [

#
A. The Founding (to 1820s)
[

#
1. Founders disliked parties, viewing them as factions.
2. For parties to be acceptable, people had to be able to distinguish between policy [

#
disputes and challenges to the legitimacy of government. [

#
3. Emergence of Republicans, Federalists: Jefferson versus Hamilton [

#
a) Loose caucuses of political notables
[

#
b) Republicans¶ success (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) and Federalists¶ demise
c) Reflection of the newness of parties is seen in the weakness of this system. [

#
B. The Jacksonians (to Civil War) [

#
1. Political participation became a mass phenomenon [

#
a) More voters to be reached; by 1832, presidential electors selected by popular vote
[

#
in most states
b) Party built from the bottom up [

#

c) Abandonment of presidential caucuses composed of congressional members [

#

C. The Civil War and sectionalism (to 1930s) [

#
1. Jacksonian system unable to survive slavery and sectionalism.
[

#
2. New Republicans became dominant because of:
[

#
a) Civil War²Republicans relied on Union pride
b) Bryan¶s alienation of northern Democrats in 1896 deepened sectionalism [

#
3. Most states were dominated by one party. [

#
a) Factions emerged within each party. [

#
 [

  c
     [

[


b) Republicans broke into professional politicians (Old Guard) and progressives [

(mugwumps). [

c) Progressives initially shifted between parties to gain power, but then began [

attacking partisanship when the Republicans became dominant.
[

D. The era of reform (beginning in the 1900s, but chiefly since the New Deal)
1. Progressives pushed measures to curtail parties¶ power and influence. [


a) Primary elections favored, to replace nominating conventions [


b) Nonpartisan elections at city and (sometimes) state level [

c) No party-business alliances, on the grounds that they were corrupting [

d) Strict voter registration requirements in order to reduce fraud
[

e) Civil service reform in order to eliminate patronage
f) Initiative and referendum so that citizens could vote directly on proposed [

legislation [

2. Effects [

a) Reduced the worst forms of political corruption
[

b) Weakened all political parties²parties became less able to hold officeholders
accountable or to coordinate across the branches of government [

E. Party realignments [

1. Critical or realigning periods: periods when a sharp, lasting shift occurs in the popular [

coalition supporting one or both parties
[

a) Issues that separate the parties change, so the kinds of voters supporting each
party change. [

b) Shift may occur at the time of the election or just after. [

2. Five realignments so far: [

a) 1800 (Jeffersonian Republicans defeated Federalists) [

b) 1828 (Jacksonian Democrats came to power)
[

c) 1860 (Whig party collapsed; Republicans came to power)
d) 1896 (Republicans defeated William Jennings Bryan) [

e) 1932 (Democrats came to office under FDR) [

3. Two kinds of realignments [

a) A major party is defeated so badly that it disappears, and a new party emerges.
[

b) Two existing parties continue, but voters shift their loyalty from one to another.
4. Clearest cases of realignment: 1860, 1896, 1932 [

a) 1860: slavery issue fixed new loyalties in the popular mind [

b) 1896: economic issues shifted loyalties to East versus West, city versus farm split [

c) 1932: economic depression triggered new coalition for Democrats
[

5. 1980: Not a new realignment
a) Reagan won in 1980²not because of what he stood for, but because he was not [


Jimmy Carter. [


b) Could not have been a traditional realignment, because Congress was left in the [

hands of the Democrats. [

6. Major shift in presidential voting patterns in the South
[

a) 1972±2004: South has been more Republican than nation as a whole
b) If continues, will constitute a major regional realignment [

F. Party decline [

1. Evidence that parties are declining, not realigning. [

2. Proportion of people identifying with a party declined between 1960 and 1980.
[

3. Proportion of those voting a split ticket increased.
a) Was almost unheard of in the nineteenth century, because voters were given [

ballots by the parties [

[

 c
   

b) Became more common with the adoption of the office-bloc ballot (listing [

#
candidates by office instead of party)
III. The national party structure today (THEME A: PARTY STRUCTURE TODAY) [

#
A. Parties similar on paper [

#
1. State and local party organizations enjoy a great deal of autonomy from the national
[

#
party apparatus. They control the process of delegate selection to the national nominating
conventions by using primaries to select delegates. In recent years, there has been a trend
where states compete to have their primaries held at the beginning of the delegate-selection
process. Earlier primaries force presidential candidates to pay particular attention to these [

#
states in order to develop momentum by winning earlier primaries. This has resulted in a
[

#
front loading of the delegate-selection process that the national parties are helpless to
control. [

#
2. National convention has ultimate power; meets every four years to nominate the [

#
presidential candidate [

#
3. National committee is composed of delegates from states; manages affairs between
[

#
conventions
4. Congressional campaign committees support the party¶s congressional candidates. [

#
5. National chair manages daily work [

#
B. Party structure diverged in late 1960s and early 1970s [

#
1. RNC moved to bureaucratic structure
[

#
a) Became a well-financed party devoted to electing its candidates, especially to
Congress [

#
b) Beginning in 1980s, RNC used computerized mailing lists to raise money [

#
c) Money was used to provide services to candidates [

#
d) RNC effectively created a national firm of political consultants. [

#
2. Democrats moved to factionalized structure and redistributed power.
[

#
a) Democrats lost five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988.
b) By the 1990s, DNC had learned from the RNC: adopted the same techniques, [

#
with some success. [

#
3. DNC and RNC send money to state parties to sidestep federal spending limits (soft [

#
money)
[

#
C. National conventions
1. National committee sets time and place; issues a ³call´ setting the number of delegates [

#
for each state and the rules for their selection [

#
2. Formulas are used to allocate delegates [

#
a) Democrats¶ formula shifts delegates away from the South, to the North and West
[

#
b) Republicans¶ formula shifts delegates away from the East, to the South and
Southwest. [

#
c) Result: Democrats move left, Republicans right [

#
3. Democratic formula rewards large states, whereas Republican formula rewards loyal [

#
states.
[

#
4. Democrats set new rules
[

#
a) In 1970s, rules were changed to weaken local party leaders and increase the
proportions of women, youth, blacks, and Native Americans attending the [

#
convention; superdelegates [

#
b) Hunt Commission in 1981 increased the influence of elected officials and made [

#
the convention more deliberative
[

#
5. Consequence of reforms: parties represent different sets of upper-middle-class voters
a) Republicans represent traditional middle class²more conservative [

#
b) Democrats represent more leftist wing of the liberal middle class [

#
6. To become more competitive, Democrats adopted additional rule changes: [

#
 [

[


  c
     [

[

[

a) In 1992, three rules were set:
(1) Winner-reward system of delegate distribution banned²this had previously [

given the winner of primaries and caucuses extra delegates. [

(2) Proportional representation implemented [

(3) States that violated the rules were penalized with the loss of convention
[

delegates.
b) Delegates once selected by party leaders are now chosen by primaries or local [


caucuses. [

[

7. Conventions today only ratify choices made in primary season.
IV. State and local parties (THEME B: UNITED STATES PARTIES AS BROAD COALITIONS) [

A. State-level structure [

1. State central committee [

2. County committees
[

3. Various local committees
4. Distribution of power varies with the state, because different incentives are at work. [

B. The machine [

1. Definition: a party organization that recruits members via tangible incentives (money, [

jobs, political favors)
[

2. High degree of leadership control over member activity
3. Abuses were extensive [

a) Gradually controlled by reforms²voter registration, civil service, Hatch Act [

(1939) [

b) Machines continued until voter demographics and federal programs changed,
[

decreasing the need for the parties¶ resources
4. Machines were both self-serving and public regarding [


5. New machine: uses money to knit together many politicians, though money comes [

from campaign contributions, not from patronage and contracts [

a) New machines are a blend of the old machine (regarding campaign finance) and [

today¶s ideological party traits (regarding issues).
[

b) Money once raised by patronage and contracts is now supplied by wealthy
contributors and funds raised through direct mail.. [

C. Ideological parties²extreme opposite to machine [

1. Principle is more important than winning election, so ideological parties are [

contentious and factionalized.
[

2. Usually outside Democratic and Republican parties²³third parties´
3. Currently are generally focused social movements, which advance specific demands [

4. Political machine was once the ³farm club´ of the national party, but today¶s social [

movements perform that function [

a) Factionalism is therefore more intense
[

b) Party leaders have less freedom
D. Solidary groups [


1. Members are motivated by solidary incentives (enjoying the game; companionship) [

2. Advantage: neither corrupt nor inflexible [

3. Disadvantage: not very hard working [

E. Sponsored parties
[

1. Created or sustained by another organization
2. Example: Detroit Democrats were developed and led by the United Auto Workers [

(UAW) union [

3. Not very common in United States [

F. Personal following
[

[

 c
   

1. Requires an appealing personality, an extensive network, name recognition, and money [

#
2. Examples: Kennedys (MA), Talmadges (GA), Longs (LA), Byrds (VA) [

#

V. The two-party system [

#

A. Rarity among nations today [

#
B. Evenly balanced nationally, but not locally
[

#
C. Why has the U.S. two-party system endured for so long?
1. Electoral system²winner-take-all and plurality system limit the number of parties [

#

2. Opinions of voters²two broad coalitions work, although there may be times of bitter [

#
dissent [

#
3. State laws have made it very difficult for third parties to get on the ballot.
[

#
VI. Minor parties (³third parties´)
[

#
A. Ideological parties are not interested in immediate electoral success and thus persist despite
losses at the polls. [

#
B. Two types of parties have been successful in carrying states in presidential elections: [

#
1. Economic protest parties, which form to protest economic conditions [

#
2. Factional parties, which form from a split in a major party
[

#
C. Surprising that more social movements (for example, the civil rights movement, antiwar
movement) have not produced their own parties [

#
1. They have only a slim chance of success. [

#
2. The major parties accommodate the movements via direct primaries and national party [

#
convention.
D. Impact of minor parties on American politics hard to judge [

#
1. Conventional wisdom holds that minor parties develop ideas that the major parties [

#
adopt. [

#
2. Factional parties have had probably the greatest influence on public policy.
[

#
VII. Nominating a president
A. Two contrary forces [

#
1. Party¶s desire to win the presidency motivates it to seek an appealing candidate. [

#
2. Desire to keep dissidents in party forces a compromise with more extreme views. [

#
B. Are the delegates representative of the voters?
[

#
1. Democratic delegates much more liberal
2. Republican delegates much more conservative [

#
3. Outcome cannot be attributed solely to quota rules for delegate selection²women, [

#
youth, minorities have greater diversity of opinions than do the delegates [

#
C. Who votes in primaries?
[

#
1. Primaries now more numerous and more decisive
a) Stevenson (1952) and Humphrey (1968) won the presidential nomination without [

#
entering any primaries [

#
b) By 1992: forty primaries and twenty caucuses (some states with both) [

#
2. Turnout for primaries is low, yet studies find little evidence to suggest that primary
[

#
voters have more extreme political views than rank-and-file party voters.
[

#
3. Caucus: meeting of party followers at which delegates are picked
a) Only the most dedicated partisans attend [

#
b) Often choose most ideological candidate: Jackson, Robertson in 1988 [

#
D. Who are the new delegates? [

#
1. Today¶s delegates are issue-oriented activists
[

#
2. Advantages of this new system:
a) Increased opportunities for activists within the two major parties [

#
b) Decreased probability that they will defect from the major parties [

#
[

#
  c
    

3. Disadvantage: these delegates may nominate presidential candidates unacceptable to [


voters or even to the party¶s rank-and-file supporters

VIII. Parties versus voters [


A. Democrats: since 1968, have won more congressional elections but had little success in [

presidential contests
[

1. Presidential candidates are out of step with average voters on social and taxation
issues. [


2. So are Democratic delegates to the nominating convention, and there is a connection [

between the delegates¶ and the candidate¶s positions. [

B. Republicans had same problem with Goldwater (1964).
[

C. Rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans differ on many political issues, but the
[

differences are usually small.
1. Delegates from the two major parties differ widely on these same issues. [

2. Therefore, the candidate needs to share views with the average citizen or campaign on [

issues where delegates and voters agree. [

3. Problems arise, though, because candidates competing in primaries must often play to
[

the ideological extremes to win delegate support.
[

Ê
 
÷
÷
 A meeting of party members to select delegates backing one or
another primary candidate
÷ 
÷   A party committee in Congress that provides funds to members
÷  and would-be members
÷ ÷

  Period when a major, lasting shift occurs in the popular
  coalition supporting one or both parties

 ÷
   A party that values principled stands on issues above all else


 Republican party faction of the 1890s to the 1910s, composed
  of reformers who opposed patronage
 
÷   Day-to-day party manager; elected by the national committee
 
÷  Delegates who run party affairs between national conventions
 
÷  A meeting of party delegates held every four years
 ÷
÷

  A ballot listing all candidates of a given office under the name

of that office; also called a ³Massachusetts´ ballot
  ÷



  A ballot listing all candidates of a given party together under

the name of that party; also called an ³Indiana´ ballot



  The political support provided to a candidate on the basis of

personal popularity and networks



  An electoral system in which the winner is that person who
gets the most votes, even if he or she does not receive a
majority; used in almost all American elections

÷
 ÷  A party organization that recruits members by dispensing
patronage

÷
   A group that seeks to elect candidates to public office
 c
   


  ÷  The social rewards (sense of pleasure, status, or
companionship) that lead people to join political organizations

 ÷  Voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in
the same election
   A local or state political party that is largely supported by
another organization in the community
    ÷  Voting for candidates who are all of the same party


  Party leader or elected official who becomes a delegate to the
national convention without having to run in primaries or
caucuses
    An electoral system with two dominant parties that compete in
national elections

  
 
Communist Party USA: www.cpusa.org
Constitution Party: www.constitutionparty.com
Democratic National Committee: www.democrats.org
Democratic Socialists of America: dsausa.org
Green Party of the United States: http://gp.org
Independent American Party: www.usaip.org
Libertarian National Committee: www.lp.org
Reform Party National Committee: www.reformparty.org
Republican National Committee: http://rnc.org
  Ê 
 [

#
[

#
[

#
 !  ! 
Robert E. DiClerico. Ê

Ê
 d

 
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, 2000.
Samuel J. Eldersveld and Hanes Walton, Jr. Ê

Ê
   . 2nd edBoston:
Bedford/St. Martin¶s, 2000.
John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey, eds.     Ê
 
   d 
 Ê

. 5th ed Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Paul Herrnson, 
dÊ

 Ê
d 
Ê    . 2nd ed. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Marc J. Hetherington and William J. Keefe. Ê
Ê

Ê
Ê
 . 10th ed.
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.
David R. Mayhew.     Ê 
!" #$
 
%&'()*++*.
2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
  c
    

Sidney M. Milkis. Ê

Ê

 
 
    #  
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
, 
Ê   
%-.%)*++' Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2005.
Joel Paddock.  , 
Ê
   New York: P. Lang, 2005.
John F. Reynolds.   
      
 %--+)%&%%. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Andrew J. Taylor. 
d/
   d



Ê Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.
Jeff Taylor.    Ê 0

 1 
23 3 d  1  

!  Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006.
John Kenneth White.  4

  Ê


 
  Washington,
D.C.: CQ Press, 2003.
John Kenneth White and John C. Green, eds.  Ê

 $ 
$





5 
 Ê

Ê
 Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
[

!""#
Although they are very similar on paper, the structure of the national Democratic party differs
substantially from that of the Republican party in practice. The Democrats, torn by ideological
conflicts, have evolved into a factional party emphasizing the mobilization and conciliation of party
activists. The Republican party has become a bureaucratic party devoted to winning elections by
focusing on raising money and providing consulting services to its candidates. The result is that the
Democrats have selected presidential candidates with a decidedly liberal orientation, whereas
Republicans have fielded more moderate nominees capable of attracting middle-class voters. Thus the
numerical advantage of the Democratic party has been offset by the electoral appeal of Republican
candidates.
These generalizations, however, apply to national²largely presidential²elections. The parity of the
two parties breaks down at the state and local levels, where party strength varies by region. Moreover,
the key organizational units of the party structure are located at the city, county, and state levels. The
national parties are little more than an affiliation of these regional entities and lack any real control over
them. Five distinct types of local party organizations have developed. [


1.    is a party organization that recruits its members with tangible incentives and is [

characterized by a high degree of leadership control over member activity. In their heyday,
machines were dependent on federal patronage jobs (such as in the post office), kickbacks on
contracts, payments extracted from officeholders, and funds raised from businessmen. With the
influx of poor immigrants, the machine adopted a social welfare function. The abuses of the
machine were curtailed through stricter voter registration laws, civil service reforms, competitive
bidding laws, and the Hatch Act, which made it illegal for federal civil servants to take part in
most political activities. More important, as increased income and sophistication made voters less
dependent on what the machines could offer; so did the growth of the federal welfare system. It is
easy to scorn the machine as venal and self-serving; however, machines mobilized a very high
level of participation. Furthermore, their interest in winning elections meant that machines
supported popular candidates, regardless of ideology.
2. $

d
value principle above all else. Because of their unwillingness to compromise, [

ideological parties are typically third parties such as the Socialist, Prohibition, or Libertarian
parties. However, some local organizations within the two major parties fit into this category.
Ideological parties are marked by intense internal conflict over issues, and leaders have little room
for maneuvering and bargaining.
 c
   

3. 
 d
are composed of people who find politics fun. Such groups have the advantage of [

#
being neither corrupt nor inflexible; however, often they will not work very hard.
4. d 
 d
are created when some other organization provides money and workers for a [

#
local party. These instances are rare, the UAW¶s role in the Detroit Democratic party being the
best example.
5. Ê 



"
attracted by the personality of the candidate have become much more [

#
important as other forms of party organization have declined. Such a following can allow a
candidate to be independent, but the politics of personality (as opposed to machine or ideological
politics) deprives the average voter of any reasonable basis for judging most candidates.
The various types of local parties are all important. But increasingly, political activists who become
nationally known enter that scene from interest groups such as the National Organization for Women
(NOW), the National Educational Association (NEA), and the AFL-CIO.
Despite the concentration of power at the local level, most Americans define the parties on the basis of
their national identities. Yet an odd role reversal seems to be taking place, as each national party has
begun to assimilate characteristics of the other. The electoral fortunes of the parties have much to do
with this process. The string of presidential victories from 1980 through 1988 lulled Republicans into
equating their success with the conservative ideology of Ronald Reagan. This assumption proved fatal
in 1992. The genial personality of Reagan had concealed the rough edges of his conservative principles;
voters were attracted more to the person than to the value system. In the 1984 election, for example, the
pollster Louis Harris discovered that Americans preferred the position of the Democratic candidate,
Walter Mondale, to that of Reagan on twelve of sixteen issues surveyed.
For both parties, the challenge is to find candidates who satisfy the ideological demands of the party
delegates while also appealing to rank-and-file party members. Since party delegates usually are more
ideological in their views, their expectations for candidates often conflict with the views held by the rest
of the American electorate. Democrats, for example, have had difficulty in selecting winning
presidential candidates in part because they choose candidates with views on social and taxation issues
that are too extreme for mainstream voters. Republicans also select candidates that appeal to their
delegates; however, in the general contests, they have typically fared better²capturing all but two of
the presidential contests between 1968 and 2004²because their candidates hold views that appeal more
to voters in the center.
[

#
 !  $!  
[

#
1. Consider the five types of local political party organizations that the text lists. What advantages
[

#
and disadvantages does each type have? Rank the five types according to whether they can:
yp Introduce needed political reforms
yp Successfully assemble enough power to govern effectively
yp Induce a broad cross-section of society to participate
yp Avoid corruption
yp Give the voters a reasonable choice of policy makers and policies
yp Allow the voters to hold politicians responsible for the success or failure of their policies
yp Rejuvenate the political process by allowing ³outsiders´ in
Are some types of parties more likely to be stronger and more electorally successful than others?
Under what circumstances should each type of party, with its virtues and disadvantages, be
established? Abolished?
  c
    

2. The national political parties have little control over the behavior of their members or of the [

candidates representing them. For example, David Duke²a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux
Klan²entered the Louisiana legislature as a Republican despite radio broadcasts by President
Reagan calling for his defeat. How is the political system hurt by the loose organization of
political parties?
3. Over time, the influence of party delegates has caused each of the major parties to become more [

ideological, and thus more polarized from one another. A review of the party platforms, for
example, reveals positional statements that would be considered extreme by mainstream
Americans. Might this be the cause of declining party membership? Is there a way to keep the
political parties from being overly influenced by these ideologues?
4. Do political parties have any incentives to offer to members to keep them interested and actively [

involved in local, state, and national affairs? Should they reintroduce a modified patronage system
to reward active party members for their loyalty and commitment?
[

    Ê 



[

 !  ! 
John F. Bibbey and Sandy Maisel. " Ê
6   0  Ê
 . 2nd ed.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003.
Earl Black and Merle Black.    5   
Ê " 
 Ê

.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.
David Blevins.  Ê

Ê
 *%
  Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2006.
Stephen I. Frank and Steven C. Wagner.   #   
7
 1

4 /


 
    
New York: HBJ College Division, 1999.
Jo Freeman.   3 "   ÊÊ

New York: Rowman & Littlefield,
2000.
Gerald H. Gamm,.  # , " 
 
4 2   
 2
 
%&*+)%&'+Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. Ê
3 

Ê

Ê

  
$  4  
. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. 
dÊ

 . 2nd edLanhan, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Armando Navarro. !89Ê 

   9" :Ê 
d
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.
Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, eds.  2
 , 0 



 
 /
Ê
8 Ê

 Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.
Arthur C. Paulson. 
 
 
  ;
#   . Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 2007.
Ronald Rapoport and Walter J. Stone.  /
 "   Ê


Ê  
 d

   Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Mildred A. Schwartz. Ê  
 9 
 
 Ê 

  
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
 c
   

Barbara Sinclair. Ê

Ê
8  Ê

 , 
Ê
#. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 2006.
Jeffrey M. Stonecash. Ê

Ê
  
    Ê
4 
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006.
[

#
!""#
It is remarkable that America have had only two major parties for most of its history; most European
democracies are multiparty systems. Two factors account for this. First, U.S. elections are based on the
d

" :# :

system. Therefore, a vote for a minor party is often perceived as a wasted
vote. Under a system of proportional representation, which is common in Europe, even very small
parties have a chance of winning something and therefore have an incentive to organize. Second, in
spite of occasionally bitter dissent, Americans have not faced divisive and long-standing controversies
over the organization of the economy, the prerogatives of the government, and the role of the church.
They have agreed on enough issues to make broad coalitions possible. Finally, state laws make it
exceedingly difficult for third parties to get on the ballot, as third-party candidates George Wallace and
John Anderson quickly discovered in 1968 and 1980, respectively. Matters were only somewhat better
for Ross Perot in 1992.
Third parties continue to form, however. They are typically one of four types: 

d
,such
as the Socialist, Communist, and Libertarian parties;  :

 d
,such as the Free Soil or
Prohibition parties;   d 
d
,such as the Greenback and Populist parties; and  

d
,such as the Progressive Party in 1924 and the American Independent Party in 1968. Of these,
factional parties probably have had the greatest influence on public policy. This is due to the impact of
a factional split on the unity of a major political party and the subsequent possibility of an electoral
defeat.
[

#
 !  $!  
[

#
1. Democratic politics always requires a majority coalition to win. In the United States, the coalition
[

#
is formed before an election, in the makeup of political parties. In European multiparty systems,
the coalition is formed after the election, when a political leader bargains for the support of other
parties to form a voting coalition of a majority of seats in parliament. What difference might it
make whether the coalition is together before or after the election? Which system allows the most
meaningful elections? Which allows citizens to express their attitudes best in the polling booth?
Which most effectively allows citizens to hold politicians accountable for what they do?
2. Why do some voters believe that it is illogical to vote for a party other than one of the two major [

#
ones? What did former Democrats gain when they voted for the Green Party candidate Ralph
Nader in 2000? What did voters gain when they defected from both major parties and supported
Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996?
3. In 1998, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota, having run on the Reform Party ticket. [

#
Ventura was a former professional wrestler, actor, and radio talk show host; he served as mayor of
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota¶s sixth largest city, from 1991 to 1995. At the time of his election, it
was thought that the Reform Party, founded in 1995 by Ross Perot, might have an opportunity to
challenge the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties at the state and local levels.
However, in 2000, in the middle of his gubernatorial term, Ventura left the Reform Party over
partisan differences and joined the Independence Party of Minnesota. Does this historical example
suggest that minor parties can be successful in electoral politics? Or does it highlight the
difficulties that candidates face when they stray from major party organizations?
  c
    

% & '" [


[

   c
The existence of the American two-party system is linked to the winner-take-all character of the
electoral system. Unlike many European nations, the United States does not have a proportional
representation system (which encourages multiparty systems) but rather a single-member district
system, whereby only one candidate can win the public office being contested. Given the additional
middle-class/centrist nature of the United States electorate, preferring candidates from either one of the
two major political parties becomes a natural choice for most voters.
These effects have been a source of concern for some political scientists, most notably Lawrence D.
Longley and Neal R. Peirce. These scholars described the Electoral College as a ³fatally flawed means
of determining the American president´ that ³has the potential for . . . deeply eroding the security of our
democratic processes.´ In  
 


 Ê *+++(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999), they list the following deficiencies of this institution: [


1. It is a distorted counting device. Its winner-take-all mechanism exaggerates electoral margins. [

Additionally, the two additional electoral votes, which correspond to the number of senators in
each state, further distort the states¶ Electoral College representation. Less populated states are
overrepresented. In addition, the allocation of electoral votes ignores differences in voter turnout
among the states.
2. Candidates¶ campaign strategies are shaped by these distortions, which consequently affect policy [

decision making and implementation. In particular, the concerns of the large, swing states receive
more careful consideration. Concerns distinctive to the smaller states are more likely to be
ignored. When this analysis is conducted at the more precise regional level, the Electoral College
is shown to advantage urban voters.
3. The Electoral College generally discriminates against candidates from third parties and preserves [

the dominance of the two major parties. Although regionally based third parties may hope to carry
some states, third-party candidates with more broad-based appeal are sharply disadvantaged. In a
three-way race (as in 1992 and 1996), the candidate receiving a mere plurality of a state¶s popular
vote will still be awarded all that state¶s electoral votes.
4. Faithless electors may further distort the popular will²particularly in the event of a close [

election.
5. The structure of the Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the election even though [

he may have received fewer popular votes. This divided outcome was seen most notably in the
contentious 2000 presidential contest between the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and the
Republican candidate, George W. Bush.
Of course, the authors of the Constitution would be surprised, first by the current functioning of the
Electoral College, and second, by a desire to place such great reliance on the popular will. As originally
designed, the Electoral College was intended to mediate the popular will, ensuring that the people¶s
passions did not lead to the selection of a corrupt national leader. The notion that this institution should
either merely reflect (if exaggerate) the popular vote²as is currently and most frequently the case²or
be abolished in favor of electing the president by a national popular vote is therefore a contradiction and
even a perversion of the Federalists¶ expectations for their democratic republic.
[

D
[

1. Review each of the above critiques, noting that these points can be transformed into support for
[

the Electoral College. For example, the fact that the Electoral College discriminates against third-
 c
   

party candidates has been viewed by some as integral to sustaining a moderate, two-party electoral
system. What other benefits can be found amongst the critiques? Ultimately, does the Electoral
College provide the United States with more benefits than costs?
2. Does the Electoral College exaggerate the partisan differences between the Democrats and [

#
Republicans? How do the red-versus-blue Electoral College maps oversimplify election
outcomes? How might the winner-take-all system affect Republican participation in California,
which is predominantly Democratic, or Democratic participation in Utah, which is predominantly
Republican? Would dividing Electoral College votes along congressional district lines instead of
whole states improve voter participation?
3. Which is more important in establishing legitimacy: a victory in the Electoral College or a victory [

#
in the popular vote? Would a close election in the popular vote be more or less problematic than a
close election in the Electoral College?
Ê$E
FGHIJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHISK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHISK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHITK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHITK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FGHIJSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIJGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIJTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIJFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIJUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIPUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIQUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIRUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHISUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FTHIGVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIGUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHITUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIFUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIURK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIUUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
FUHIJVTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJVFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJVFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJVUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJVUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJVK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJJK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJPK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJQK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJRK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJSK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJGK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJTK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJFK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed
Ê$E
UVHIJJUK#$LE
 MLNLOL 
Field Code Changed