GOV 312L Lessons 1-8 Notes
GOV 312L Lessons 1-8 Notes GOV 312L
Popular in Issues and Policies in American Government
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 79 page Bundle was uploaded by Cassidy Schap on Saturday September 26, 2015. The Bundle belongs to GOV 312L at University of Texas at Austin taught by Jerod Patterson in Fall 2014. Since its upload, it has received 146 views. For similar materials see Issues and Policies in American Government in Political Science at University of Texas at Austin.
Reviews for GOV 312L Lessons 1-8 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/26/15
I Chapter 6 Party Identi cation Party ID is sense of psychological attach to party Party ID tells more about person s polit attitudes and behavior than any other single piece of info A How People Develop Party Identi cations Families are most common source of rst party ID aCthhoodln uences Casual convos w parents convey party loyalties to kids Party loyalty comes rst later learning about political issuesevents which are unconsciously ltered through partisan lense ID often sustain bc ppl gravitate toward like minded ppl reinforcing the ID When parents share same ID likely to produce kid w strong ID Schools avoid partisan politics churches recently became v engaged b In uences in Adulthood ID more likely to be challenged as indiv moves to new enviro college work marriage new community paying taxes Longer indiv has party ID stronger it becomes Partisanship useful shortcut to simplify voting Periods of major party change when issue basescoalitions are transformed some voters switch loyalties B Patterns of Partisanship over Time Tends to be very stable changes in overall partisanship tend to happen v slowly more serious upset in stability during times of political upheaval eg Nixon s reelection in 72 Watergate pardon by Ford Ford losing election in 1976 13 of ppl changes from party ID to indep other changes at time eg civil rights movement protests against Vietnam women s rights enviro activism all had effect on independentle a Has There Been a Decline in Partisanship Research in 605705 showed decline drop in con dence increase split ticket since then there has been a resurgence in strong partisanship since 505 decreased in proportion of weak partisans big increase in independent quotleanersquot b Recent Changes in the Direction of Party ID since 911 approval rating in Cong dropping Repub continues to slip proportion of Repub identi ers fell sharply 0 one apparent cause mass decline of approval rating of GW Bush repubs rebounded during Obama w controversy over stimulus programhealth care Dems started dropping big policy tends to produce strong backlash o proportion of Americans who are married white Christians core of Repub party has seriously declined fastest growing group latinos and young people C Party Identi cation and Political Views 0 party loyalty affects attitudes even when up against important values ie religion 0 biggest diff in views bt Dems and Reps has to do w govt spending Reps much more critical of big govt much more hostile toward Obama more favorable to idea that traditional values should be enforced D Party Identi cation and Voting 0 Partisans have to ght way through long ballotstrad of distrust of strong parties 0 party lDers tend to support their party fairly faithfully 0 when partisanship is weak voting choices more likely to be unstablemutable a Party Voting 0 recent polarization of major parties prob helped some voters clarify polit attachmentsheighten loyalty strong partisans are more consistent loyal voters o straightticket voting declined in 605705 but stronger indiv s ID more likely he is to vote straight b Party versus Candidates and Issues 0 voting decisions aff by givetake of 2 forces strength of party loyalty amp power of short term forces in a given election 0 short term forces attractiveness of cands and issues in that campaign c Partisanship as a Two Way Street 0 reaction to prez s management of econ can feed back on party loyalties 0 ID is usually strong enough to withstand disappointment in a particular cand or party s position on an issue or two but accumulation can weaken ID E Party Identi cation and Political Activity 0 Ppl who consider selves either dem or rep are more involved in poH csthanindeps Partisanshipemotionally engaging creates personal stakes F Party Identi cation and Attitudes toward the Parties 0 Strong identi ers see greater contrast bt dems and reps in general amp speci c 0 Stronger party ID alone not enough to account 4 more political activism Socioeconomic status also plays large role G The Myth of the Independent 0 Disconnect bt American myth of highminded indep well informed citizen who is moved by issues and candidates not parties and reality of widespread partisanship a Attitudinal Independents def of indep is someone who tells a poll taker they do not ID w a pa y these indeps tend to split tickets and wait longer to decide how to vote 0 important to distinguish bt indeps who say they feels closer to one of the parties leaners and those who don39t quotpurequot indeps leaners tend to be more politically involved b Behavioral Independents quotparty switchersquotthose who supp diff parties in consecutive elecs tend to come closer to myth of indep than actual independents showed issue related rationality rather than attach to one party c Are Independents a Likely Source of Support for Third Party Candidates 0 W weakest tie to major parties could be more open to charms of minor partiesindep cands Would be dif cult for indep3rCI party cand to get winning coalition from group as diverse as indeps who have little in common H Change in the Impact of Party ID a A More Candidate Centered Politics 0 Great majority of Americans still hold party ID but parties have faced challenges to in uence on citizens Early 19005 states adopted direct primary voters choose cands wout guidance of party label 0 New campaignfundraising tech developed harder for party orgs to monopolize Cands tend to downplay partisanship as means of attracting support 0 Other things w effect on campaigns new and trad media organized interests campaign consultants cand s characteristics issues current events I Ih Weakness of cand centered elec make more difficult to hold govt responsible Focus on indiv cand rather than team of cands that stand for an identi able policy orientation may ask more of voters than willing to give apter 23 Parties and Voter Turn Parties must win supporters but also get them to the polls while discouraging the opposition from voting Can do in 3 ways 1 Each party has worked hard to get its possible supporters the right to vote 2 Promote policies that make voting easier and more accessible to them 3 Work actively to bring more supporters to the polls in an elec Voter mobilization is key focus Voter turnout in US is relatively low A Elections The Rules Affect the Results B Ex C Ru Rules are never neutral different rules can affect certain demographics making it more or less likely that those supporters will be able to vote reformers struggle at state level to in uence rules states govern who is eligible to vote pansion of the Right to Vote white males given right to vote earlier in US than any other democ early 18005 states gradually repeal prop income taxpaying reqs women gained right in 1920 19th amend most recent changeowering voting age to 18 1971 black votingmore complex human rights but also partisanship some NE states had black suffrage before Civ War 15th amend adopted after war supp by Republicans prevents discrim based on race most blacks supp Repubs who championed emancipation Demrun Southern states worked to keep them from voting les Affecting the Access to Voting Rights Many regs promoted by progressive movement late 18005 early 19005 a The Secret Ballot Originally voting was oral then changed to identifiable ballots Progressives called for Australian ballot printed by gov and marked in private to discourage votebuying amp to weaken party machine 0 Did not do away w quotlong ballotquot voters elect large of statelocal officials Requires so much time to do well drives down voter turnout People tend to use their party ID as a shortcut to the long ballot b Citizenship 0 Biggest legal barrier 0 Mills of adults workamppay taxes but cant vote until naturalized which can take years 0 W avg income levelsethnicity most of them would be likely to vote Dem c Residence o For most of history state req citizen to live in state for certain period Southern states had longest terms to keep migrant workers from voting 0 1970 Congress limited reqs to max 30 days for prez elecs d Registration 0 most states ppl must register in advance in order to vote Progressives urged this to limit voter fraud by party bosses Reduced high turnout levels of the time took more motivation D The Special Case of Voting Rights for Black American 0 South manip system w variety of laws capricious elec administration intimidation violence Blacks got suffrage in 18605 couldn39t really vote for almost a century after a The Long Struggle for Voting Rights 0 After Reconstruction south state and Sup Ct played game of constitutional chicken 0 States would hinder blacks Sup Ct would strike it down states would try again 0 Rep party barely existed in south so cand who won Dem primary would win gen election 0 Some states declared Dem party to be a private club open only to whites making it a quotwhite primaryquot 0 Most states req poll tax and some used literacy tests directed at poor and uneducated blacks Came up w endless delays to prev blacks from registering those who kept trying faced losing jobhome and physical violence Courts found it difficult to counter reformers turn to Congress 0 Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave US Justice Dept right to seek injunctions against ppl preventing blacks from voting 0 When they could prove discrim court could send federal registrars to register them and supervise voting o This fed intervention amp civ rights efforts enabled black electorate to grow b From Voting Rights to Representation Every 10 yr state leg redraws boundaries of state and congressional districts so they remain equal in pop size 0 Sup Ct ordered legislative redistricting to stop state leg from overrepping rural areas and underrepping bigger cities Often used for shortterm political gain 0 Gerrymandering drawing dist lines to max one party s strength Racists tried to redistrict to best undermine black voting strength 0 1st bush admin pressed southern states to create some districts w majority black or latino voters majorityminority districts 0 they would elect minority legs to congress improve rep of minority citizens created alliance of blacklatino Dems white Repubs another reason was to elect more Reps to Cong from the south dists packed w heavily Dem black voters left neighbor dists w higher proportion of whites and Reps c Getting Blacks Votes Counted 0 limited by fact that about 13 of black males cant vote bc felony convict mandatory sentences for drug use target drugs used more often by blacks bc most of these voters are likely to vote Dem Dems are hurt E Efforts to Liberalize Voting Rules a Election Day Registration EDR allows ppl to register and vote on same day Tends to lead to higher turnout rates b quotMotor Voterquot Laws 0 Required states to let ppl reg to vote at driver s license bureaus by mail and through agencies that give out federal bene ts 0 Voter reg surged in these areas Opponents feared it would result in increase of low income Dem voters c Early and NoExcuse Absentee Voting 0 Many states voting conducted entirely by mail 0 Almost 13 of voters vote before Election Day Earlyabsentee did not usually lead to higher turnout just redistrin votes over 6 w period Speading out of votinggood helped lD probs w voting sysfix b4 elec day 0 Challenge to partycand bc tradition of building to big nish doesn39t work when ppl are voting in October F The Voter ID Controversy Efforts to liberalize reqs caused backlash in some state leg 0 Some have tightened rules by requiring certain documents at polls a Voter ID Laws Reqs voters to show statefed govt issued photo ID at polls Proponents usually Rep claim it prevents vote fraud Dem opponents are fraud is v rare and massive numbers of poor minority disables ppl might lose chance to vote bc less likely to have DLpassport Studies show rules are often arbitrary blacks more likely to be IDed b Proof of Citizenship 0 Some state req docs like birth cert naturalization papers passport Supporters say theyre needed to curb noncitizen voting 0 Other say that like voter ID laws poordisabled have hard time getting docs c Voter Intimidation One technique is to park police cars near polling places and warn prospective voters falsely that they could be arrested for unpaid parking tickets or child support if they cast a ballot Increase in these methods has led to both parties hiring large of lawyers to as poll watchers G Voting Systems Are Votes Counted Fairly In 2000 elec about 2 of all votes showed no vote or voted for more than one cand these votes were not counted actual voting syst maybe to blame confusing ballot layout leads voters to vote for diff cand than intended 0 other probs malfunctioning voting machines lines so long ppl went home 0 human error may occur elecs are decentralized ppl in one state maybe treated diff than in others 0 counties differ in ability to pay for more reliable costly voting systems poorer amp minoritydominated counties typically Dem more likely to use errorprone systems 0 2002 Help America Vote Act 3 bil to upgrade voting system set min fed standards created computerized statewide voter registration rolls 0 many counties used to buy electronic voting machines over 80 evoted raised issues comp crashes programming errors possibility of hackingrigged machines HAVA granted right to cast provisional ballot to anyone whose eligibility was challenged by elec official H The Low Turnout in American Elections Relatively exciting 2008 elec black manamp a woman were frontrunners boosted turnout in some groups 5 inc in blacks 3 latinosAsians Turnout was 65 in 1960 49 in 1966 v low comp to other democracies Why Don39t More Americans Vote 0 Voting turnout should have risen dramatically since mid 19005 Edu levels have skyrocketed and higher edu levels linked w higher turnout o Liberalized registration residence early voting rules make it easier to vote 0 Despite this levels are still where they were in 19605 I Individual Differences in Turnout Ppl pay some cost for voting not in money but time energy attention variety of econ and social forces eg edu levels social connections affect how ppl weigh costbene t of voting aEducann biggest diff bt votersnonvoters is edu level 0 less edu tend to be Dem much less likely to vote 0 close relationship bt edu income job status poor ppl also vote less 0 more edu helps understand polit system makes ppl feel like they ought to vote b Youth 0 young ppl disproportionately Dem much less likely to vote 0 political knowledgeinterest is low 0 young votes matter bc there are big diffs bt youngerolder generations 0 youth more likely to favor privatizing public services more tolerance of interracial dating and same sex marriage cands pay more attention to older gens bc they vote more so social securitymedicare rank high on priority list while issues facing the younger gens ie education and marriage equality are ignored c Gender and Race 0 increase in edu levels and change in gender roles has closed gender gap in voting 0 remaining racial diffs are due to avg diffs in edu and occupation o latino and asian Americans have lowest turnouts d Social Connectedness ppl who belong to orgs connected w friendsfam are more likely to vote 0 contact w politically smart people increases likelihood o voting more common among ppl who are wellintegrated into the community via home ownership longtime residence church attendance orjob outside home even being married e Political Attitudes some civic attitudes make ppl want to vote thinking that govt is responsive to citizens trust in the govt sense of responsibility to partake in elections 0 many well informed well educate young ppl have become cynical are not tempted to get involved K The Impact of the Current Campaign a The Excitement of the Election turnout usually highest in pres elecs lowest in local races pres race is hyped up usually exciting because of publicity less effort required to get info on candidates b Close Competition 0 close races bring voters to polls more assurance their vote will matter L Party Efforts to Mobilize Voters 0 person to person contact tends to be more effective esp for 1st time voters many groups dev programs to inc voter turnout civ rights groups work with Dems to get blacks org labor mounted GOTV drive to use union members contact w members friends neighbors a Do Party Efforts Diversify the Electorate Both parties tend to contact higher income older people 0 These ppl more likely to have stable addressesphone s can be found easily 0 Most mobilization drives do little to inc turnout in groups that don39t vote What are the major obstacles to voting that all US residents must overcome in order to vote 0 Citizenship keeps millions of people from voting quotlong ballotquot is so tiresome and requires so much effort makes people not want to vote advance registration What relatively recent rule changes have some states made to help overcome some of these barriers Election Day Registration allows people to both register and vote on the same day decreasing the amount of effort and motivation required on the pa rt of the voter Registration via mail driver s license bureaus etc Early voting and noexcuse absentee voting What laws have other state legislatures passed or are considering in reaction to these rule changes out of concern with voter fraud Voter ID laws require people to show a state or federal governmentissued ID at polls Some states require even more asking for documents like birth certi cates naturalization papers and passports as proof of citizenship Which social groups are expected to be affected the most by all these rule changes and by extension how are the parties affected by these rules By far the groups affected by these laws are groups that are already typically disenfranchised The poor the disabled and many minority groups are signi cantly more likely to have dif culty obtaining the required documents This results in these groups having their ability to vote damaged seriously if not taken away altogether The groups affected have proven to be chie y aligned with the Democratic party meaning that these laws and regulations are detrimental to the Democrats more than the Republicans The largely white Christian middleclass groups that make up the core of Republican support are in no way as likely to be hindered by voter ID laws because there are far fewer obstacles between them and the polls Finally which side do you support regarding these rule changes and why I would identify myself as weakly partisan or possibly an independent leaner The way I vote is not based on party lines but on what I know of the candidates and their policies That being said I nd that my opinions and desires line up most frequently with the Democratic Party and in the matter of liberalizing voting and making it easier to cast a ballot I am in rm agreement with their policies I believe that it is in the best interests of the nation as a whole to enable as many people to vote as possible and imposing restrictions that prevent certain demographics from voting is unfair and unintelligent In my opinion the only way that the American government is ever going to be able to accurately represent the interests of the whole country is if they are actually hearing the voices of everyone they represent Lesson 3 Notes The Political Party as an Organization Bc the party org is less visible than cands remains mysterious Party orgs vary from powerfulelaborate to empty shells Shackled by state laws unable to in uence other 2 parts of party Must work hard to courtmobilize electorate Cadre party org is run by small of leadersactivists w littleno public participation Make decisions choose cands select strategy they think voters will like Focus on election cands rather that on issues Active mainly during campaigns when cands need them most Massmembership party highly participatory all 3 parts of party closely intertwined Large voters become duespaying members of org and help yearround Focus on promoting ideologyedu public also on winning elections Members of party in elec are so integral party may provide bene ts like insurance and leisure activities Major US parties can be considered cadre parties majority of party leadersactivists are volunteers In practice parties tend to slip out of precise de nitions Party orgs are at core of party itself Sector that can provide continuity when cands elected of cials and identi ers come and go Qhapter 3 The State and Local Party Organizations Party orgs are keepers of parties brands unifying labelsideas Wout party is unstable alliance of convenience among cands and bt candsgroups of voters A What is a quotStrongquot Party Stronger parties have larger budgets more fulltime paid staff quotparty organizational strengthquot work effectively to register voter inform them get them to polls ll ticket w attractive cands cands would win more races than theylose whether party is able to get platform enacted into law to do these things needs staff other forms of org strength B State Regulation of the Parties suspicion of parties causes most states to pass laws to restrict the orgs laws actually help demrep parties against competition from minor parties give state govt tools to keep eye on them fed courts step in to protect citizens voting rights US party orgs more heavily regulated than in other democracies C Levels of Party Organization Structure corresponds to levels of govt at which voters elect of ce holders a Local Party Committees County is main unit in most states bc important local of cials are elec at county level eg sheriffs prosecutors county attorneysclerks judges council members treasurers assessors surveyors coroners etc Control vital functions from policing areaprosecuting to assessingcollecting property taxes This is grassroots lots of volunteer activity Counties div into smaller precincts Each precinct has party leader committeemanwoman in theory When this position gets lled happens in one of three ways 1 Chosen at local party caucus meeting 2 ln primary election 3 Higher party authorities appoint them 3 most important jobs registering new voters going doorto door to tell supporters about cands and getting voters to polls may also try to raise to supp local cands in some states next level of local org is city party committee in others it may be town county or state leg and congressional dist committees usually greater activity at county level than in any other layer of local b State Central Committees party org at state level recruit cands for statewide of cesstate leg seats assist in training them raise to support their campaigns state law usually gives other powers responsible for callingorg party conventions drafting party platforms supervising spending of party campaign funds selecting party s pres electors reps to the natl committee some of natl convention delegates levels of party org are set to correspond to voting district where citizens choose pub of cials in that state the main responsibility of these orgs under state law is to contest elections laws say that state leg are ambivalent about what party org is many treat them as cadre orgs create a party that is semipublic not private group whose active members choose its leader and set its direction relationship bt state and local party orgs is not hierarchy where lower level take orders from higher levels more like system of layers of organization each level has some indep power power usually ows from bottom to top orgs remain p decentralizedrooted in local politics D Legendary Party Machines high point of local party org strength late 18005 early 19005 urban political machine reached peak power party machinediscipined org controlled noms to elective of ce was hierarchy relied on material incentives for support controlled govt in city or county decline began in 305 most were gone by 605 brought down by of forces some never recovered from election upset by midclass reformers some lost power when racial tensions overshadowed old politics a How the Party Machines Developed late 18005 many immigrants poor no English faced difficult adjustment party leaders saw opp for mutual pro t immigrants needed jobs social services stuff city govt could give party leaders needed votes to gain control of city govt many needed jobs most visible bene t from party machinepatronage jobs in city govt thousands of jobs at machine s disposal assured that city workers remained loyal local party workers gained loyalty by nding welfare agencies for poor machine leaders quotbossesquot attended weddingswakes listened to job seekersbusiness execs bailed out drunks helped hungryhomeless machine offered stuff to local businesses govt purchased goods from private sector insurance agentslawyers who wanted city contracts newspapers printing city notices suppliers of soap to city bathrooms were motivated to donate machine intent on winning support in exch for preferments used them ruthlessly and effectively to build power b How Machines Held on to Power not just party org but quotinformal govtquot social service agency ladder for upward socialecon mobility source of strengthethnic loyalties risefall of machine closely linked w changes in ethnicgroup migration to big cities capable of creating quotdesigner electoratequot by using forceintimidation to keep opposition from voting conditions that led to dev of machines esp large churchy pop w immediate econ needs also found in small southernone company towns can t really be sure how strong machines were ethnic loyalties seemed more important than even own maintenanceexpansion econ changepolitical reform removed most important resources of patronage jobs greatly reduced more edu incr ppl s ability to fend for themselves in society racial divisions overwhelmed machine s ability to balance ethnic groups E Local Party Organizations Declined and Then Rebuilt machines failed local parties strength dropped mid19005 many citycounty parties starved for leadershipvolunteers began to rebuild not as able to run campaigns focused on providing services to candidates a Local Parties in the 19705 most county orgs run by volunteers almost none got paid few had regular budget yearround office listing in phone book local dem parties didn39t differ much from reps but states differed a lot b Local Parties Today More Active More Structured continue to dev as struc org still depend on volunteers tho county parties increasing use of internet sitesemailsoc media pub opinion pollsbuying local radioTV ads are less common not high priority on mobilizing young voters local leaders in many states have upped efforts re absenteeearly voting many reg voters can vote by mailin person b4 elec day many local parties now mail absentee ballot requests to all party mems more effort to recruit cands good evidence that county orgs are strongermore active now F The State Parties Gaining Money and Services state parties basically suck rarely had power weak link recently more important richer professional more active a Traditional Weakness began as loose federations of semiindep local party chairs differed in many ways ruralurban regional ethnic religious loyalty to local leaders con ict bt more libmore conservative interests progressive reforms early 19005 weakened them esp into of direct primary limited in uence of state parties on campaigns for state offices begin in late605 natl Dem Party adopted reforms greatly inc of primaries in pres nom process reduced state party s role in selecting pres candidate extensions of civ service protectionsunionization eroded patronage base b Increasing Strength in Recent Decades since 605 have become strongermore active began to institutionalize become enduringspecializedwell bounded orgs number of fulltime paid state party chairs doubled bt 605805 full time leadersstable locations were vital to dev of parties as orgs cont to expand over half in 1999 had fulltime party chairs research staff PR directors 34 had eld staff 91 had fulltime exec director maybe most crucial thing in CA 2009 Rep Party set task force to apply leading technology including next gen of comp applications that will come after FB Twit and Youtube i FundRaising by 2000 almost all raised at eventsby direct mail 0 use for variety of races party cand for governor state leg senateHouse esp active in recruitinghelping fund cands for state leg 0 often recruittrain cands amp provide fundraising support advice on consultants liason w political action committees passage of leg in 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act took away ability to transfer soft to state parties 0 did allow states to spend fed regulated on fed campaign activityto raise certain amt of soft fo grassroots mobilizationspartybuilding ii Campaign Services to be competitive state legstatewide cands need consultants voter lists computers state parties can comply provide training seminars conduct pub opinion polls iii Republican Advantage unlike at county level state Repub are stronger than Dems larger budgets biggermore specialized staff provide more to cands Dems are catching up iv Allied Groups Labor unions esp teachersgovt employees unions work close w Dems Provide volunteers etc to cands For 15 yr NJ AFLCO has run quotboot campquot training prog for 1st time leglocal cands most Dem to help w fundraismediamessagescampaign support Small business groups manufacturing assoc prolifers Christian conservative orgs often ally w Repub cands As state parties get strong these groups try to incr in uence on them Possible to think of parties as network of orgs incl interest groups consulting rms quotthink tanksquot Not easy to build strong state party org Must overcome localism of US politics hostility toward party discipline con icts among supports Strongskillful personal leadership by governorsenatorchairman helps v The Special Case of the South When Dem party got interested in black people conservative southern assholes started to drift away White southern supp for Reps grew rst in pres elecs then in state races Since 94 Repubs now surpassing dems in state elecs Southern Reps gew stronger organizationally By 905 NC s Rep party had expanded budgetstaff focused on sttracting experienced cands for targeted districts producing direct mailradio ads helping cands w trainingresearch Dems have had to respond so both have gotten stronger vi National Party Money W more energetic leadershipmore infused a lot of into state parties G Summing Up How the State and Local Party Organizations Have Transformed There has been dramatic changes in party org strength at statelocal levels Prog reforms limit control of orgs over nomsgeneral elecs as well as valued patronage resources Fed soc service programs econ growth more edu racial con ict al undermine effectiveness of local parties Have adapted new tech like websitessoc networking enable them to expand State party orgs have grown more robust in recent years Providing campaignorg services to cands Nationalization of US societypolitics affects party orgs lead to greater balance of power among party orgs at diff levels Though stronger statelocal prob have less impact on politics than before Much more competition for attention of voters cands media Campaign communications merge into ood of internet TV mail fundraisingads by citizen groups corplabor PACsnonprofits lnc n org strength of statelocal parties helped them adopt modern campaign skillsrecapture roll in campaigns but not DOMINANT role Party orgs rarely run campaigns but new resources give chance to compete for attention of those who do ie the candidates Despite all changes in party org in past few decades most basic struc features have not changed ghapter 4 The Parties39 National Organizations Sev decades ago natl parties had no power were decentralized Almost all pub officials are chosen in statelocal elecs Statelocal party orgs have chosen own officers taken own stands on issues raisedspent own funds usually wout much interference from natl party Recent years demsreps strengthened natl committees resourcesstaff hae grown Dem Natl Committee DNCRep Natl Comm RNC are mutlimill fundraisingcandidatesupport operations Dems have limited indep of statelocal ord in selecting delegates to natl conv Local pull still strong but dist of power bt natlstatelocal more balanced than ever A The National Parties Officially each party s supreme natl authority is natl conv held every 4yr to nom pres cand Rarely does more than selec presVP nominees approve platformrules a The National Committees Gathering of reps from all state parties leaders run natl party on daily basis Main focus help elec party s pres cand Dist pollspolicy info work w state parties recruittrain cands Since 1972 when Dems restructured their committee demsreps have structured differently RNC gives all states equal rep DNC gives weight to both population and to parry support Also differ bc DNC gives seats to reps of group liely to support dem cands ie blacks women labor unions b National Party Chairs Chair and staff they choose are heart of natl party org Members of full natl committee gather only 23 timesyear Main goal to call media attention to party and its cands Officially natl comm have power to select own leaders By tradition party s pres cand can name own natl chair for duration of pres campaign and committee rati es choice wout queonn c Presidents and Their National Parties Pres began to dom their natl party since early 19005 but esp since 605 In pres s party the natl committee s role is whatever pres wants it to be Some pres turn comm into nothing but managers of pres campaign When party doesn39t have presidency natl party chaircommittee have more freeom to play indep role in politics Bc of change in nance rules natl committee has to work sep from pres cand s own campaign organization in pres elecs B Other National Party Groups a Congressional Campaign Hill Committees Most important of these related groups are House and Senate campaign committees called Hill committees Dem Cong Camp Comm DCCC and Natl Rep Cong Comm NRCC are concerned w House elections Dem Senatorial Camp Comm DSCC and Natl Rep Sen Comm NRSC fund senate races Incumbent housesenate mems control them but have resisted pressure to work only for incumbent also support cands for open seatschallengers who have good chance of winning Concentrate where they think best chance to inc party s rep in Cong b Democratic and Republican Governors Associations Governors org in uence tends to be best in power vacuum when other party holds presidency c Women s and Youth Groups 0 Both demsreps have had women s div assoc w natl comm Importance has declined a lot recently bc women got regular leadership positions in parties 0 On campuses College Rep Natl Comm the CR5 and College Dems have inc membership in 20005 0 Both train eld reps to recruit volunteers for campaigns at all levels d Party Networks Natl parties work closely w network of allied groups 0 For Dems labor unions enviro women sciv rights groups Reps small busness groups NRA cons Christian groups C Two Paths to Power Reps followed service path building huge fundraising op to pay for services to candsstate parties Dems followed procedural path strength natl party s authority over state parties in selec of pres nom Most imp was ability to attract thousands of small contrib through mass mail 0 Gave indep nancial base a The Service Party Path 0 Party org that supp campaigns w moneyother help as opposed to running the campaign 0 2 keys to success money and campaign tech 0 using innovation of time compgen mailing lists Reps began program of directmail appeals that brought higher levels of income 0 hard money contribs reg by fed law RNC used to offer array of services to candsstatelocal party orgs incl cand recruitmenttraining research pub opin polling data processing comp networkingsoftware dev prod of radioTV ads direct mail legal services b The Democrats ProceduralReform Path Reformers supporting civ rights moevementopposing US involvement in Vietnam war pressed for change in Dem party Started in 605 w effort to keep south Dems from sending a bunch of whities to the natl convention Dems lim autonomy of state partyauth of state law in determining how convention delegates were chosen gave natl party auth over rules for nom pres cand Reps tho w commitment to states rights did not want to centralize power in own party org yet were still affected by Dem reform bc bills passed by state leg to implement reforms usually applied to both parties In the end dems didn39t like result so moved toward Rep service model c Both Parties Take the Service Path Dems in 805 improved fundraising a lot reduced debt inc activities in statelocalities Began to rely on soft donated to party org in unlim amt mostly by labor unions businesses wealthy indivs and exempted from fed campaign nance rules 2000 Repubs est quotRepublican Regentsquot for indivscorps who gave 250000 in soft to party during 2yr period Dem s est quotJefferson Trustquot for donors of 100000 Some went to building up statelocal parties Larger portion went to races for US housesenate 2002 BCRA prevented natl comm from collecting soft d Rising to the Challenge of New Campaign Finance Rules BCRA caused transfers of from natl party comm to statelocal parties to drop markedly in most states bc BCRA allowed trns of fedreg only Both natl parties tried to make up for it by working to get more hard donations from indivs DNC expanded directmail fundraising program e Party Money and Activism in 2008 2010 2012 Biggest portion of party fundraising comes from indiv citizens lncr of contrib to party commcands were mems of Congress Both parties have urged and even required that members channel into party comm not just certain cands Gives party chance to target races most winnable Success in getting incumbents to give large sumsput ndraising skill in service of other party cands demonstrates extrent to which Cong parties have become important instruments of collective power for their members Since 2000 GOP created mass databank of voter info indiv s past voting recordsopinionsconsumer prefs so party strategists could predict how ppl were likely to behave quotmircrotargetingquot helped Reps to focus persuasive effort on inivs most likely to support Repub cands Dems slow to respond but created 2 sep databases One run by DNC avail to Dem cands at all levels Other huge dataset managed by Catalist org headed by Dem political operative used a lot in Obama campaign Freshman leg esp those eec in dist that normally vote for other team tend to be most vulnerable in 1st reelec race D What is the Impact of These Stronger National Parties Helped to beef up parties roles in nomelec cands Natlstate parties now actively involved in campaign support functions that private camp consultantsother poit groups had monopolized b4 a Effects on Candidates Campaigns Natl committees research issues study opponent s recordbackground search for own cand s weakness nd ways to thwart attacks Train state party staff eld directors and maintain relations w important groups in party s network Partyfunded ads are much more likely to ft attacks on opponents Bc most voters do not dist bt cand and party ads a cand can be tarred w a neg image b Effects on State and Local Parties Forces that encourage statelocal party focus remain strong Clear that natl parties new strength has lessened decentralization of party orgs When natl parties have moneyservices to give powerin uence grow lnc natl in uence can strain relations bt party orgs at diff levels Area of greatest con ict bt natl and statelocal natl party involvement in primaries When natl party committees use their to affect choice of canddirection of a campaign likely there will be ruf ed feathers in state partythe campaign who feel that they are betterjudges of what works in the district c Effects on the Presidency Fed funding of pres campaigns w strict lims on party spending for pres races freed natl committees from trad concentration on pres eec allowed them to dedicate resources to party building at statelocal level One other hand new abilities make natl comm even more attractive resource for presidents Pres on 1st term wll want to draw on assets of natl party for re elec camp Strong pressure on natl parties to put abilities at service of pres goals d Effects on Congress Hill committees have become much more active in recruitingsupport party cands Cong mems more likely to cast leg votes w maj of their party Party funds usually go to competitive races not cands who are quotideologicaly purequot Party comm have not used funding to in uence ideological makeup of Cong but some mems of party in Cong have tried to Constituency pressures will always come rst in Cong e Relationships within the National Party 2 natl comms of each party the DNCRNC and Hill committees have good reasons to cooperate when pres cand does well most of voters will also vote for SenateHouse cands of the pres s party party s resources are not unlimited each of party s natl comms want biggest share party comms have long competed w each other in raisingspending seek nancial support from same contributors jealously guard contrib lists recruit political talent from the same limited pool E Limits of Party Organization in sum natl party orgs have recently generated large amts of new and other resources hav used resources expertise energy to become major players relative to statelocal parties and major in uence on lives of many fedstate cands rise of super PACs likely to cut into parties fundrasing ability but natl party orgs remain stronger than in most of their history inc of strength is not at expense of localstate parties too many forces in US politics encouraging indep esp in local parties fed system in which most pub officials are elected at local level sep of powers variations among statelocal areas in pub attitudes and reg of the parties BCRA rules that discourage cooperative campaigns bt fed and nonfed cands all this works against a centralized party system us parties lack topdown controlef ciency uni ed setting of priorities central responsibility where party orgs of most western democracies have had permanent highly professional leadership and large party bureacracies most US party orgs esp at local level are still in hands of part time activists parties inc emph on grassroots campaigning thru canvassingphone banks have used info to dev microtargeting aiming spec messages at indivs known to be receptive to those messages 0 party orgs are fundamentally exibleelection oriented purpose to supp cands for officemake adjustments needed to do well in pragmatic political sys as polit sys grows more polarized party orgs have taken opportunity to expand rolesadd to polarization 0 even though natl party committees now have unprecented lvls of fundingactivity they remain candidatecentered orgs in cand centered political world Option 1 How have new campaign technologies changed the role the national party organizations play in campaigns over the past three decades What has allowed them to develop these new campaign technologies Describe some of these new services offered by the parties Has this strengthened or weakened the national party organizations Cha ter 5 Part Activists 91106 0 Party orgs cant survive wout volunteers 0 wout their efforts orgs cant register voters get out the vote build support for policies or even maintain FB page A What Draws People into Party Activity a Material Incentives tangible rewards for action direct paymentsother concrete rewards o for many yr main material reason ppl got involved w party act was to share in spoils gained when party controlled govt i Patronage O O O appointment of indiv to govt job as reward for party work v limited today but party can still provide loyal workers w support if they seek elected of ce when party machines controlled cities city govts were staffed entirely by loyalists of party in charge employees volunteered time energy often part of salary to party org as of govt jobs grew of patron jobs avail dropped dramatically most govt employees now hired under civ servicemerit systems Sup Ct helped dismantle patronage at statelocal levels 1976 1980 Ct ruled some county political employees could not be red simply bc party in charge changed 1990 politically based hiringpromotion violated 1st amend freedoms of speechassociations mayors govs pres continue to reserve toppolicy making positions for trusted supporters civ service rules for govy employees bypassed by hiring polit loyal temporary workers outside of civ service systemby channeling party loyalists into jobs in private rms that depend on govt business wherever polit leaders can they will nd way to give jobs to supporters patronage promoted by pres Andrew Jackson as means of encouraging more democraticless elitist govt when govt jobs are lled by civ service procedure becomes almost impossible for reformminded leaders to replace sluggishineffective bureaucrat w more ef cient worker patronage also thought to keep orgs strong as implements of democ pat jobs only employment a party can offer o statenatl party orgs hire hundreds of proff campaign workers 0 to provide services for cands party orgs need comp specialists pollsters eld organizers researchers fundraisers strategists Websmasters direct mail specialists etc ii Elected Of ce 0 some see party work as 1st step to running for of ce 0 bc of primary elec few party orgs can give noms for pub of ce to loyal activists 0 instead party org becomes base of support to win votes 0 cands need advice staffvoluneers iii Preferments 0 other favors gov prty can give eg contracts preferred treatment in enforcing laws 0 bc pub of cials can use some discretion in dist govt servicesgranting gov contracts potential for polit favoritism 0 some ppl hope that in return for activism will get special treatment eg tolerant inspection of restaurant by health dept prompt snow removal in front of business admission for kids to crowded state uni 0 may also involve granting of scarce opportunities liquor Hcense o reformers promte of safeguards to lim govt s ability to give out bene ts and buy goodsservices from private rms 0 ex competitivesealed bidding con ict of int statutes af rm act b Solidary Social Incentives intangible social bene ts ppl can gain from assoc w other networking being part of a group facetoface contact at party HQin campaign privides chance to meet likeminded ppl amp be part of active group family trad may leads some young ppl to party activity for social life networking has become standard means of looking for job helps ppl feel part of something larger than self c Purposive IssueBased Incentives intangible refer to satisfac ppl feel when promoting issuecause that matters to them more and more ppl led to party act by commitment to certain issues indiv dedicated to abortion rights might start work for prochoice Dem cand then come to see cand s party as vehicle for keeping abortion legal srs Christian might be drawn to Reps as means of stopping abortion parties have become so polarized on many issues most volunteers for party work seem motivated by desire to use party to achieve policy goals no comparable data on earlier periods but no reason to believe this was less true of party workers in past energypassion in party org comes increasingly from issuedriven activists issuedriven party act has played vital role in shaping politics at all levels 2010 house races activism of Tea Party supp helped elect dozens of new Rep Cong membs most highly conserv on taxes govt spend illegal immigration some issuesideological movements have enough power to lead activists to switch parties abortionrace issues led former Dem proliferssouthern conserves to join Rep party starting in 19705 soon cemented set of favored issue positions in platform of new party large of issuebased acts convinced that their activity has made diff might seem irrational to spend lot of time on party act in supp of issue that could be called quotcollective goodquot one that will bene t whole soc not just acts who worked hard to achieve it but many ppl become act for that reason others become act out of general sense that citizen particessentia in dem d Mixed Incentives most party orgs rely on variety of incentives can cause strain among volunteers motiv by diff things incent that attracts ppl to party work may not be incent that keeps thm there motive that sustains party work often shifts to solidary incent friendships ID w party itself other social rewards e Professionals and Amateurs professional pragmatist worker who 1st loyalty is to party itself operating style is pragmatic these are party quotregularsquot supp party in goodbad times amateur purist issueoriented activist motiv by purposive incent sees party act as means of achieve important goals party org lled w amateur may behave diff from one w professionals if partycand puls back on commitment to issue amateur may pull back on commit to party less willing to compromise positions to win elections likely to insist on full particip within party org to get their issue to top of party s agenda when they lead party org often bring strong push for reform in both party s internal busness and larger polit system for profess goal is party s elec success issuescands are means to that end if they think that downplaying issue moderating position or nomming pop cand not in agreement w personal views will win elec they will do that party leaders must nd balance bt demands of growing purist activists and those of pragmatists dilemma remain loyal to group to keep it strongvibrant or prioritze principles for which groups was formed diff in attitudes bt amprofs don39t always show clearly in behavior though ams prefer to win w cand committed to their issue most realize they cant achieve goals unless their cands win office yet incr in am activists and accompanying incr in party polarization on issues can cause rifts that damage party s chances in certain races B Where do Activists Come From Orgs have hard time getting volunteers except at natl levelin some states w incr in paid positionsexciting professional opps State laws often take at least part of recruitment process out of party s hands Open party caucuseselec of party officials in primaries limit party s control over its personnel Can lead to takeover of localstate part org by intense group of issue activists a Finding Volunteers Is Anybody Home partic in community activitiesnot just party orgs has declined recently orgs need constant supply of acts of all kinds so when volunteers are in short supply the parties tend to accept whatever help they can get nature of help varies from 1 polit period to another depending on events naturedirec of Dem party heavily in uenced by in ux of libs spurred by Vietnam Warciv rights movement in 605705 tax revoltsefforts to lim of terms incumbent could serve brough ppl to Reps in 805 recently conserv Christian activists have brought issuesstyles of partisanship to statelocal Rep parties C What Kinds of People Become Party Activists Ppl more likely to get involv if they have resourcesattitudeencouragement Resources time civic skills ability to organizecommunicate Takes time to plan activites canvasscall attend events Edu levels help determine how much time indiv has to spend Attitudeimportant likely to partic if interest in what happens in campaignsconcerned about workings of govt if attached to party if they believe their involvement will make diff Parties now have tools to contact potential acts email snail mail FB websites texts Twitter telemarketing inperson canvassing However most successful appeals come from friendsfamily a People from quotPolitical Familiesquot Many acts had adult act in immediate fam growing up GW Bush gfather was longtime Rep officialUS sen father was former RNC chairhad served in other posts before being elected pres siblings involved in Rep politics brother served in cabinet of Rep govwon governor of FL Politics becomes the fam business b Better Educated and Wealthier than Average Acts tend to have higher incomesmore formal eduhigher status jobs Ppl w more edumore likely to have means to partic interest in politics and expectation of success Not true in most other democracies not always true of US politics Political machines of 1800searly19005 recruited activists who repped population with which they worked Machines jobsfavorsmain reason for activism Patronagematerial incent dwindled social char of parties changed Issuebased incent become more common eduincome diff bt party acts and avg citizen grew Social char of Dem acts more likely to be black unmarried female and union Diffs in edu income occupation bt 2 parties acts has declined recently Party activismother forms of partic amplify voice of privileged groups c Different Agendas Differ from avg American in types of issues they nd important Questions of abortion education economy human need soc security medicare jobs healthcare housingmain reasons Agenda varies based on incomeedu higherincome ppl more concerned w abortion and envrio lowerincome ppl concerned w human needs If higherincome pplbetter repped in parties issues like abortion get more attention Types of issues that divide DemsRep change over time In 705 primary distinction was question of social welfare how big a role govt should play in issues like welfaresocial services d More Extreme Views Party acts tend to hold more extreme views than avg American Last 20 yr libs to be active as Demsconserves to be Repmore pronounced Main reasoninc conservatism of Repub activists Esp since 94 more motiv by issuesprinciples than Dems Bc acts are so important in campaigns constitute large of primary voters nancial contrib volunteers audiences at events they have been pushing party candselec of cials to take more extreme stands on issue Result greater polarization in Washington cripples govt D Party Activists and Democracy a The Problem of Representation Acts tend to differ a lot from avg citizen aka the ppl that acts aim to persuade Dem volunteers party of cial of ceholders tend to be more lib that avg Dem When 2 parties are too alike ppl may not feel they have clear choices Democracy can be well served when parties take cleardistinct stands When DemRep acts take polarized stancesesp on issues not central to most Americans daily livestry to marginalize ppl who disagree parties exposed to pub distrust old problem in US politics b Amateurs and Pressure for Internal Party Democracy Inc in am acts often inc demands on party org Ams have come to insist much louder voice in org demands have been met Because volunteersessentia party leaders often tolerate more internal democracy to retain volunteer loyalty lnternally democratic party org might result in stronger partymore able to ful ll responsibilities Ppl who contrib timeeffort in service of strongly held idea and feel their views are taken seriously more likely to work hard for pa y May press party to be consistent in issue standshold leaders accountable On other hand pragmatic parties dedicated to party s success have long tradition in US politics Much discipline in class party machine came from willability of leaders to givewithhold rewards c Activists Party Strength and Democracy Strong party orgs often considered threat to US politics Fearf bosses accountable nly to selves controlling choice of officialspolicies Result srs effort to keep parties from power in lives of ca ndsofficialsvoters Several char of party acts help keep parties decentralizedlimited in power Shortage of volunteers means orgs must pay attent to activist s concerns Demand for internally democratic parties restrains auth of leaders at top Bc power is diffused thru various levels of org precint comm mems city leaders county officials activistsfree to de ne own polit roles Chapter 13 Parties in Congress and State Legislatures Both houses almost all state leg are org by party 0 Each of the four Cong parties is uni ed internally voting is more intensely partisan Sep of powers undermines party unity o Incr MS of party unity don39t rep the power of party in legislature Suggest that leg rely on own prefs when voting not party ID A How the Parties are Organized in Congress Cong parties are indep of natl state local party orgs but have ties to them Mems of each leg party gather at caucusesconferences to selec party leaders 0 Structure the chamber itself by nom cands for presiding officer speaker of House of Reps and president pro tempore of the Senate Majority party doms the org of both houses 0 Speaker has extensive power over House operations Maj party leader controls action in committesson oor picks chairs of committees a Changes in the Power of House Party Leaders Cong party leaders were v powerful a century ago then weak now strong again 0 re ects diffs in degree to which Cong mems are willing to accept strong leadership i The Revolt Against Czar Cannon 0 power in House was highly centralized in hands of Speaker 0 early 19005 Speroe Cannon chaired Rules Committee controlled ow of leg on oor 0 appointed all committeeschairs enforced party discipline 0 1910 dissidents in own party joined minority Dems to revolt ii Growing Party Coordination 0 chairs of standing comms that dealt w proposed leg were selec by seniority o mems of maj party could get Chair even if didn39t supp party leader s positions 0 19705 Dems moved toward greater policy coord by strength the party caucus and then the party leadership libs in Dem cauc pushed to limit indep of committee chairs 0 weakened senior rule used secret ballot to vote whether to keep each Chair 0 power to assign mems to committees moved to new Steering and Policy committee chaired by Speaker 0 Speaker gained more power over other legs futurefate of their bills b The Gingrich Revolution 0 Repub minority had no input on these reforms 94 Repubs won maj of House seats for rst time in 40yr Gingrich elected as Speaker given unprec authority to push Repub agenda To do so set aside seniority rule entirely Chairs now chosen based on commitment to party s desires Chairs limited to six year term Result was lvl of party discipline Cannon would have liked c And Later Shifts in Party Control 95 standoff on natl budget bt House RepubsPres Clinton led to govt shutdown gingrich and co got the blame eventually resigned Repub leadership kept control over selec of chairs Term limit on Speaker was elim seniority rules undercut even more Repub leadership v effective in pushing leg thru House Party leaders power has ux since 05 but movement toward strength con nues New Speaker Nancy Pelosi imposed more discipline on chairs than prev Dem spkrs Chairs expected to act in supp of party s aimsraise money for cand s camps Repub outrage at this caused frequ deadlock then party control changed back to Reps when SpeakerJohn Boehner came in Permitted more open legis process more debatebill amends allowed Overall changes have made House mems more depend on party leadership d What Caused this Stronger Party Leadership Mems of each party have become more ideologically cohesive Easier for party cauc to agree on uni ed position on legislation Can better trust that leaders will sharepromote their policy concerns Called conditional party g0vtCPG stresses incr polarization e Parties in the quotlndividualistquot Senate By mid705 Senate had moved from institution gov d by elab quotrulesquot of recip specialization and apprenticeship in which powerful committees dom d the legis work to a much more indiv body w more collegial dist of power Sen mems est selves as natl spokesppl on policy Q s expected to partic more in Senate work and get glory and higher office This helped produce threat of stalemate Even threat of libuster is enough to stop legis in tracks More polarization issues were often contentious Indiv senators have come to depend on party leaders to promote party s interests Senate rules don39t allow for as much centr of power in the party leadership Senate s party leaders consult w their colleagues rather than command then f Parties in the State Legislatures As in Cong legis parties org the legis in almost every state Power varies depend on legis rules and skillsresrouces of the party leaders Most state legi party leaders have power over daily workings of legis Can appoint memschairs of committees call meetings to give info abt upcoming bills learn whether memship is united or divided on issue encourage legislators to supp party s position tho party legis orgs look sim across the states their leadersh pos are fairly uniform they differ in their behavior B Methods of Party In uence a Carrots and Sticks cong party leaders have tools to affect behav of party colleagues rely on incentives more than punishments most punishments are ineffective so reps and sens can vote against their party s leaders or against major bills wout fear of losing job can offerwithhold desirable committee assignments help in passing member s bills promote fed projects in member s district can give speechesraise for member s reelect effort b Agenda Control according to cartel theory vital source of party leaders power is ability to control legis agenda can derail legis that could div their party s memsdamage party s image conference committees which prev incl reps of both parties to sort out diffs bt SenateHouse versions of bills are now held rarely oft exclude minority party C Party In uence on Legislative Voting a How Uni ed is Each Legislative Party Party vote is of rolls calls where most Dems vote one way Reps vote other way party unity scores is degree to which legis vote w their party s majority i Party Votes Have Increased 0 since 905 incr in party unity on voting 0 hit a recent high in 09 and 10 0 even more prevalent in House at times o mid805 has reached lvls not seen since New Deal ii And So Has Legislators Party Support 0 305605 conserv southern Dems moved to vote w Repubs o crossparty alliance known as conservative coalition came together to oppose civ rightsDem labor and edu proposals 0 reshaping of Dem supp in south in 70805 undercut the cons coalit 0 party cohesion will suffer as long as parties can t protect legislators from constituency pressures and parties in different regions have diff views 0 roll call voting is only one indicator of behav of Cong parties ones that get most attn are ones where party con ict is greatest b Greater Polarization of the Congressional Parties oneparty districts can add to it o if district has been drawn to favor incumb s party most likely source of challege is ambitious cand in incumb s party encourages House mems to move toward extreme of their Party 0 sharp party diffs give voters clear choice when electing HouseSen mems c When Are the Parties Most Uni ed i Issues that Touch the Interests of the Legislative Parties produce most unity best ex basic votes to org the legis chamber tend to be v uni ed on issues affecting numeric strength procedures by which legis is run laws reg parties elections campaigning seating of challenged mems of legis redrawing dist lines ii The Executive s Proposals legis often rally around party s execunite against other party s exec 0 when pres party in Cong works in step w pres proposals important to ask whether Cong continues to play indep role in governing other party s united opposition can be check on the executive iii Policies Central to the Party System 0 more uni ed on quotlabelde ning issues typical issues where parties are vehemently opposed to each other D Comparing Party Power in Congress and State Legislatures a Party Polarization and Cohesion 0 when party s legis rep similar constituencies more likely to hold sim views 0 more cohesion encourages legis to accept strong party leaderships b Greater lnterparty Competition legis from dist where parties have equ support more likely to be responsive to their constituents prefs rather than voting w their party al lvl of entire legis as whole close party competition can incr party voUng when both parties have equ s maj party has to stick together to get legis passed when party wins by comfortable maj is vulnerable to internal squabbles c No Competing Centers of Power standing committees may be source of power rivaling party leaders when chairs are chosen not based on party loyalty they owe less to party leadership d Other Needed Resources when party orgs have more to offer legis legis is more inclined to follow org s lead in voting can help them get projects moved up on agenda in legis s home district in some states material rewards are more abundant than in natl govt party org outside of legis can in voting if they have important resources state party legis camp comms help fund legis cands in most states many states have no lim on party contrib to camps so they can make signif contribs e Lesser Legislative Professionalism cong has evolved into highly professional legis body each mem has sizablewellpaid staff and considerable budget used to meet legisreelection needs fulltime job w good paybene ts few state legis prov mems w lvls of support even close to what Cong has staffbudget usually v minimal meet only for part of year most mems have other jobs when state leg depens on party leaders for resources more likely to listen when leader calls for party discipline f Styles of Individual Leaders legis party leaders in states vary in willingness to take strong leadership leadership style interacts w sitch of party whether is powerful maj competitive party or weak min to determine how effective they are in uniting party E The Power of Legislative Parties on one hand parties are at center of legis process party ID does more to explain behavior of stateCong legis than any other factor still not as uni ed as those of most other democ bc of sep of powers no need for party to remain internally cohesive tho legis partyies in Congstates have gotten stronger the primary relationship is bt representatives and their consits rather than bt legis and their party leadersorgs Chapter 4 The Party in the Executive and the Courts 0 most Americans want to see courts as nonpartisan many presgovernors behave like party leaders 0 never been possible to design judges free of party ID 0 when judgesadmin are elec door is open to party in in their elections A Presidents and Governors as Party Leaders 0 not all pres are v partisan but recent pres have affected their party s pub standing 0 often come to personify their party at natl level 0 several Repub pres have become v involv w party activities a The President as CampaignerinChief o president is normally big draw on fundraising circuit pres can be very persuasive recruiter or quotdecruiterquot b The President as the quotTop of the Ticketquot i Coattail Effects 0 pres runs at quottop of ticketquot rest f party ticket came into office on his coattails 0 effect declined from end of WWII thru 805 o mems of Cong got good at keeping constituency happy insulating them from outside electoral forces ii Coattails Even without the Coat o pres can in elec even when they are not on ballot 0 voter approval of president s performane affects their supp for cands of pres party in midterm Cong elections 0 explains why pres s party almost always suffers decline in share of House seats in midterm elec o by this time most pres s approval rating has dropped 0 whether or not they choose to be party leader pres s popularitysuccess can in whether mems of their party will win their races 0 esp if cand s advertising stresses connection w pres B Party Leadership and Legislative Relations 0 to get their stuff passed pres and governors must gain maj supp in their legislature execs can use ability to get media coverage their pub approval and coattailsfavors they39ve given to indiv legis a Legislative Support for Executives popular supp is key resource for chief exec in getting Cong to go w his programs pres always does better when their party controls both houses of Cong doesn39t guarantee success tho institutional rivalries designed into sep of powers help ensure that pres s party in Cong wont surrender all its powers to the copartisan in the White House i Divided Control of the Government 0 pres gets much less supp when at least one house of Cong is in hands of opposing party 0 in times of div govt execs have 2 main choices 0 can try to negotiate w at least some legis of other party 0 or can try to brand other party as quotparty of noquot the roadblock in way of progress and hope voters will give pres s party the maj in next elec C Party In uence in Executive Agencies pres is tip of iceberg adminsbureaucrats who work in cabinetlvl depts Are charged by Constitution to carry out laws that Cong passes regulate vast areas of econ food safety prescrip drugs pollution etc a How is Presidential or Party In uence Exercised Heads of largest agencies dept of health and human services dept of justice etc are appointed by pres can be removed by pres Pres no longer uses these jobs as reward for party loyalty but for loyalty to president s own aims Only make a frac of the appointments in the exec branch Below top lvl officials less likely to have party experience Oft chosen for admin skills not political credentials Most of remaining employees chosen thru civil service exams Another powerful lvl of exec branch is large of fed reg agencies like FDA FTC These agencies deal w complexv technical policy issues Party loyalty does not provide this technical competence Another lim is that admins have demanding constits just like legislators EPA works v closely w many industries professionalcitizen groups b Changing Partisan Perspectives in the Federal Bureaucracy Depsite these lims fed bureauc does respond to partisan forces in long run Lots of stuff about partisanship in the past Evidence of party in in agencies of exec branch Most presgovernors use party leadership role to prmote own programsreelec To extent that exec s goals are same as those of party party s program bene ts D Traces of Party in the Courts Most US judges are political menwomen who took of ce after carrers that involved them in some aspect of partisan politics Apptelec ofjudges has become increasingly partisancontentious a Judicial Voting Along Party Lines Hints of party in appear when looking at voting in US appellate courts Judge appointed by Dem pres tend to be more liberal on issues like civ liberties labor issues regulation In study of statefed ct Dem judges found to decide more often in favor of defendant in crim cases for govt in tax cases for reg agency in cases of reg of business and for claimants in worker s compunemployment comp cases In redistrict cases US dist judges tend to uphold plans enacted by their party more than those enacted by opposing party Not easy to distinguish impact ofjudges party ID from other in like career consideration law school training desire to protect their professional reputations b What Causes Partisan Behavior on the Courts Very little of this apparent partisanship is due to active efforts to sway them Much better explanation is that laws don39t interp themselves they re written in general language and must be applied to speci c cases w varying features judges have views on polit issueshow much interp is necessarypermissible Party lDer re ect certain sets of value judges not excluded Those who appoint judges know this Selec of judges esp for higher courts that receive hardest cases takes into account the valuesattitudes of possible nominees c Party and judicial Appointments In many states party leaders may advise on noms of prospective judges gives means to advance party goals by encourag appt ofjudges who belive in party s values permits them to further careers of lawyers who have served party loyally i Federal judges o pres noms cands for fed judge o senate has to con rmreject o appellate cts are oft site of bitter ideological battles bt bush appointed conservative judges and those appt by Dem preses o senate action of pres s noms have become more partisan also o atmos surrounding judic appts has become more hostile as ideological groups of various kinds use the noms to re up core supporters in the public ii State Court Judges 0 often elec instead of appointed not done in rest of world 0 some states use nonpartisan ballot tho party orgs still endorse own cands o cands reg accept camp contribs oft from lawyersgroups who will be brining their cases to court for a ruling 0 number of states have moved toward quotmerit appointmentquot sys in which nominating commiss screen prospec judgesrec short list to governor o partisanship oft so internalized that longterm judgeship allows them to ourish E The Party within the Executive and the ludge party diffs are reinforced by partisan aspects of process by which pres governors top exec office most judges are chosen fact that judgesadmin have to interp laws when applying them allows these diffs to be expressed parties don39t have means to enforce party discipline in exec orjudic branches Chapter 15 The SemiResponsible Parties Even when party wins maj in gov cant guarantee to carry out platform promises Parties are most effective means of holding elected office collectively responsible for their actions lf govt isn t accountable to wishes of ppl democ is at risk Some argue we should create truly responsible parties Governing party would translate a coherent polit philosophy into govt action be held accountable for results Others thing govt serves wealthy minority corps unions etc rather than ppl Both want parties to give clearermore detailed stances for winning party to make good on promises A The Case for Responsible Party Government Responsible partiesparty govt strong decisive govt to solce probs Must also be able to keep this strong govt under control a How Would Party Government Responsible Parties Work Must restruc parties hold elec officials accountable Parties would take lead in org govt Each party creates clear detailed statement of principlesprograms it favors pledges to carry out those things if it wins Parties nom cands loyal to their party s program willing to enact it if elected Would run campains that clarify diffs bt the parties so voters could grasp these diffs When elected party holds officials responsible voters determine whether they like results then decide whether to keepdefeat current party at next elec Winning elecs would no longer be goal just a means to an end Main focus would be on policies To work all elected branches of gov would have to be controlled by same party Elections would be means to achieve policy goals ppl who argue for this don39t always agree on wht prpose strong fed gov should serve many conserv were once suspic of powerful central govt started to like it when Repub presidents used it to elim liberal programs much easier to like party govt when your party is in charge advocates feel that govt w strong parties would let citizens direct gov better w even less timeeffort B The Case Against Party Government a It Would Increase Con ict nature of party gov is providing clear choices on issues which would cause even more problems legis bound to party would be less free to rep their own constituents parties are heavily in uenced by wealthy interest groups those groups would get a lot more power b It Wouldn t Work in American Politics con icts w US gov s design we have a system that tries to prevent buildup of power sep of powers and federalism prevent tyranny we usually have divided gov where at least one house of Cong is in hands of pres s opponent party makes party gov impossible c The Gingrich Experiment A Temporarily Responsible Party in 94 maj of Repubs running for House signed Contract with America pledged if voters got them House maj they guaranteed a vote on ten pcs of legis repping conserv values win 1st 100 days of next cong did win delivered on their promise House Reps more uni ed than in decades Then party govt stalled bc Senate Repubs didn39t sign contract had issues Proved that sep of powers is big road block Even when same party controls white house and Cong there are obstacles Cands are chosen in primaries so party cant insist their cands remain loyal As long as constituents keep voting for them they can break w their pa y Americans distrust parties in general C Party Cohesion and Ideology 3 parts of parties have become more willing to agree on clear party program a Are the American Parties Ideological ldeol party has clearconsistent principles on wide range of issues US parties tend to be more pragmatic focus on solid probs rather than ideals Only 2 parties repping huge array of ideals hard to get blanket agreement b Do They At Least Offer Clear Choices Parties are v polar can inc voters ability to hold them accountable Both have become more polar but also more uni ed Major contrib was civ rights issue v divisive Reagen presidency also helped he was radically into idea of simply less government 0 Gave more ideol tone than had been seen in decades c But lnternal Division Remains Clear diffs on major issues don39t add up to blanket cooperation Parties are pragmatic seek votes above all else so haven t completely stayed true to ideals D Ideology and the American Voter a How Ideological is the American Public 0 Most voters not ideol or even consistent 0 Many align w Reps on some things Dems on others 0 Too much ambivalence most voters tend to vote on party lines 0 Voters want results so partiescands put together winning coalitions that appeal to large range of qualities Partisan sorting has led lib Reps to become Dem conserv Dem to be Reps Mostly response to parties behavior polarization reminds voters of this 0 Wider range of media allows ppl to nd news that supports their own beliefs b Differences Among Voters Activisits and Candidates Actvistslesders tend to be more extreme than voters Some cands nd selves bt extreme activists and moderate voters o If they moderate their views risk alienating activists and they need them Tend to aggravate tensions among 3 parts of party Unlikely that parties will become genuinely ideological 0 Problem inc ideol commit of activists might alienate pragmatic supporters E When Is Party Government Most Likely a When there is Strong Presidential Leadership 0 Strong pres has been able to push Cong to enact parts of the platform he ran on Esp likely when pres s party controls both houses of Cong Result is likely presidential gov rather than party gov Voters respond to pres performance not party as a whole b In Times of Crisis 0 At critical times parties have div in v policy oriented ways 0 1936 elec both offered v diff solutions to devastation of Great Depression 0 ppl were desp for a solution focused attn on possible remedies from govt c When the Parties Supporting Coalitions are Reshaped when parties supp coalit of social groups undergo real change realignment parties tend to div more clearly on single set of issues high lvls of agreement typically prod uni ed fed govt regardless still way less uni ed than European parties F Party Government and Popular Control when parties have clear goals easier to hold them accountable may make for strongermore vibrant democracy cong partiesparty in electorate have become more uni ed in recent years too much shit stands in the way of full unity Chapter 16 The Place of Parties in American Politics parties powerfully shaped by ppl who leadpartic in them and enviro in which they act electioncampaign nance rules interest groups citizens legis courts etc A Parties and Their Environment affect enviro in diff ways promote pub policies in response to citizens beliefsdemandsfears recruit indivs into active role in govt make rules gov how cands are nom d nanced who gets to choose them enviro shaped parties natureactivitieseffectiveness 3 types esp important nature of electorate nation s basic govt institutionsrules forces that affect broader society a The Nature of the Electorate natureconcerns of voting pop are vital to party sys societal quotfault linesquot div elec into opposing groups help de ne issue agendas right to voteaccess to polit info has incr greatly voters now able to partic in elecs thru primaries referenda recall elections etc ppl s interest in politicstrust in effectiveness haven t incr voter turnout dropped more among the poor b Political Institutions and Rules basic framework whether govt is federal or unitary whether it has parliamentary or separated powers how positions of power are struc also laws that regulate the parties party orgs reg d more heavily than anywhere else in world restricts dev of party orgs boosts power of party in gov relative to party org 0 US parties more decentralized c Societal Forces Eventstrends in larger society affect parties agendas lncl character of org interests in nation naturebehav of media etc B Party Decline in the 19605 and 19705 0 Basic feature of parties is that the 3 sectors are bound together loosely PO unable to involve large party lDers cant direc campaignspolicy making of PIG a The Parties in the Electorate 0 Time of upheaval in American life 0 More ppl thought of selves as indep quotleanersquot surge in ticket splitting Edu lvls incr some voters got more responsive to issueoriented cand TV more widely spread viewers drawns to cands media images b Party Organization 0 Last of great party machines fading Orgs couldn39t depend on patronagepreferments o More ppl drawn to activism bc of commitment to ideals More edu demanded more participation 0 Didn39t like to compromise standing rm more important than winning elec Direct primary dom d pres noms orgs gave up control over noms Lost central role in campaigns in general Cands had to build own campaign orgsraise to run in primaries Campaign nance reforms gave more incentive to raise outside of org 0 Tech advances allowed them to do so c The Party in Government Elec office more depend than ever on direct appeals to voters Freed from reliance on party by direct primary access to media moneyvolunteers they could attracted indep of party efforts Became harder than ever to unseat an incumbent public office became a profession Harder for legis party leaders to get mems to vote in agreement w their ideals W less comp from legis parties pres and governors could exercise more leadership d Shifting Power Centers within the Parties 0 Party orgs lost power to other polit intermediaries interest groups media too 0 Party orgs even more vulnerable to suspicion about party bossescorruption Result was peculiar kind of party Party org is only sector whose interests go beyond winning indiv elections Sustains party when it loses its races Links officeholders w officeseekers Decline of party orgmajor force in general decline of parties C Party Renewal a Change in the Parties Electoral Coalitions Signif enough to alter very nature of party sys Most striking element is movement of white South from Dem to Rep Dramatic decline of Dem strength in south growth of almost uniform Dem lD among blacks Transformed Demdommed polit enviro into close competition b Which Party Will Gain the Advantage Ability of dems to incr their margins among more eduwealthy voters amp attract large maj of fast growing seg of electrate young pplLatinos led to fear for Repubs Led to feverish debate among repubs abt what went wrong Some said that party s extreme views were alienating weak partisansindeps Challenge is that more inclusive stance could alienate strong partisans Events of 605705 resulted in challenge to party loyalties Many voters rely on info from outside of the parties c The Rise of More Cohesive Parties in Government By mid705 long decline in cohesiveness in Cong had stoppedstarted getting better Enhanced by coalitional changes win party electorates Became more important in exec branch Reagan was most ideolpartisan in decades Dems became more uni ed as a response Polarization in Cong is threat to effectiveness d The New quotService Partiesquot Party orgs have also revived Facing candcentered camps both parties started providing services to their cands Used incr fundingstaffing to help statelocal parties recruit cands offer more resources and step up role in campaigns New service party differs from grassroots orgs of past Main role is to supp cands not v visible to voters doesn39t always have maj impact Don39t oft bring enough to be able to dom campaigns at all One of many forces trying to win attn of cands in elec offic and mobilize citizens Party orgs more vigorous now Greater balance of power bt natlstatelocal D The Future of Party Politics in America Parties have potential to enable polit leaders to work together over time provide cues for voters to decide on candsissues w little effort bring voters to polls organize majorities a A Changing Intermediary Role Parties serve as ef cient guide for voters in polling decisions Voters exposed to so much info parties serve as lters lncr polarization makes party labels even more important to citizens Trad dom in polit eroded by competit from org interestsmedia ln fractured polit world parties are means of broadcasting indiv s perspec improving ability to hold elec of c accountable Parties are adaptable b The Need for Strong Parties We need them but we don39t like them Democracy doesn39t work wout them A rep body Cong is struc to permit legis to give constits what they want Shortterm tangible bene ts disaster reliefMedicarejobs on pork barrel Legis facing reelec look to provide bigger bene ts to constits Strong legis parties have incent to take responsib for collective costs Can gain personal adv by becoming leaders of their congressional pa y Mems realize that their own reelec needs come 1st but also have to coord win legis to pass billshelp w endless tasks of legis life Can create favorable name for party in elecs wout strong parties where would this collec responsib come from in soc dom by interest groupsintermediaries most ppl not wellrepped parties can moblize sheer 5 against org d minorities w other polit resources w less parties wellorg d minorities w money insider knowledge tech experts would prob have greater adv makes it tougher for citizen to hold their reps accountable weakened parties would rob polit sys of effective means of governing indiv cands would have to recreate majorities for every new legis proposal result could be even greater gridlock c How to Make the Parties Stronger most potent elim sep of powers direct primary and antiparty sentiment all of these are obvi not on the table party orgs could perform greater constit service provide bene ts like lowcost health insurance build longterm loyalty Conclusion The Parties Prospects electorate is more and more vried some traditional group ties have broken down most voters still ID w party but also respond to cands issues natl trends results is more diverse complicated politics that frustrate everyone parties cant meet every polit need difficult to offer policy alternatives in camps Wout engaging in distasteful con ict hard to unite office holdersoffice seekers on single agenda while giving cands indep to choose own appealsmeet district s needs I Parties and Party Systems 0 Parties have competition from organized interests NRA etc who want to get govt to enact policies they want also prolifers Even nonpolitical groups universities Walmart MTV try to in uence govt Groups are intermediaries links bt citizens and govt of cials Amplify ppls voices tell ppl what govt is doing monitor each other and public of cials Parties focus on nom Candidates getting them elected organizing those who win Most org interests rep narrow groups not likely to get majority support so try to in uence views of candidates American parties tend to focus on election activities European parties more committed 2 ideologieskeeping officials faithful All vying w interest groups for money expertise volunteers support Public hostility made legislatures pass restrictions on partieswhat they do Parties respond by adapting Qhapter What Are Political Parties GWash was afraid of parties said they encourage selfinterestdomination cause jealousydivisionrevenge Wout them we re more likely 2 get nobleuncorrupted leaders 0 Strong party org makes ppl vote wout them voter turnout might drop even further A Three Parts of Parties 0 a party is a group organized to nominate candidates to try to win political power through elections and to promote ideas about public policies central gures are candidatesampelected of cials activistsorganizations that get involved are important too can link party to network of policy demanders on various issues most ppl dev strong attachment to a party progressive movement late 18005early 19 made case for including citizen base in parties voters decide most important thing who candidate will be 0 major American parties are composed of 3 parts party organization party in govt party in electorate a The Party Organization 0 party org incl party leaders and activists who work for partyampcandidates made up of ppl who hold jobs w titles natl amp state party chairs amp other of cers the county city ward precinct leaders amp committee people and other supporters who volunteer time money skills to advance party39s aims charged w promoting all of party39s candidatesstands on issues b The Party in Government 0 party in govt people who run forhold public of ce 0 major gures are presidents governors judges Congress members state legislators bureaucrats mayors amp other local of cials work together w party org but may have diff priorities often assumed to speak for party c he Party in the Electorate party in elec citizens who are attached to party 0 people who see themselves as dems or repubs ie partisans or party identi ers inclined by not forced to support their party 0 major American party is open inclusive permeable B What Parties Do C Th parties in dem do 3 things in some degree select candidates and contest elections educate citizens about issues work to in uence govt parties are goal oriented so must win elections compete w interest groups political orgs and media to educate public e Effects of Party Activity parties simpli y issues and elections aggregateorganize political power organized oppositionvita to democracy bc has natural incentive ambition to serve as watchdog on powerful govt dominate recruitment of political leaders help pull together divided political system US gov is fragmented challenge is making units work together to get shit done How Do Parties Differ From Other Political Groups parties maintain relations w variety of organized interests who share concerns but they do differ from these interests distinguished by role in structuring elections parties are paramount among groups in elections are fully committed to politics sole reason they exist interest groupsother orgs do political AND nonpolitical stuff parties mobilize mass amt of supporters to win large of races parties usually stable and longlived endurance adds value for voters gives continuity operate as symbols emotionladen objects of loyalty for many party label is social identity most minor parties are electoral orgs in name only have fewno local orgs won t win How the American Parties Developed founders of US govt hated factions but began taking sides as soon as new govt began dominant group led by Alexander Hamilton believed in centralized control of economy called Federalists championed central bank high tariffs to protect US industry TJeff James Mad and others disagreed wanted states rights Parties formed from top focused on issues that concerned leaders who formed them Pres chosen by electoral college Members of House of Reps chosen by direct popular vote state leg chose senators Jeffersioniansminority organized activistsampvoters called DemocraticRepublicans FederalistJohn Adams lost to TJeff in 1800 amp Federalists faded away DemReps held one party monopoly for 20 yr absence of party con icts led to it being called quotEra of Good Feelingsquot Began to change in 1820 more public involvement Formed Electoral College each state choose number of electors equal to size od congressional delegation to vote for president If no candidate wins majority prez selected by House of Reps each state gets one vote F A National TwoParty System Emerg Era of good feelings gave way to 2party system that persists now Jackson led Democratic party other party became known as Whigs Public involvement grew more ppl could vote pres elections became more competitive voter turnout increased 1840505 slavery increasingly affected both parties whigs fractured on issue then collapsed replaced by antislavery Republicans Repubs committed to protect US industry w high tariffs levy taxes to subsidize industrial dev roads railroads settlement Southborder states were Dem strongholds but Repubs won pres in 1860 Party system fractured into NS modern political parties sim to today with characteristic organizational structures bases of loyal voters lasting alliances among governmental leaders had developed by the mid 18005 a The Golden Age of the Parties b cocoa loo Euro immigrants became new source of voters welcomed by Dems Large 5 worried others who formed American Party KnowNothing Party Immigrants ocked to cities forjobs parties helped assimilate them Late 18005early 19005 golden age for parties high point of powerin uence Party orgsdominant segment ourished in indust cities Source of infoguidance for uneducatedilliterate electorate he Progressive Reforms and Beyond 17th amend gave voters right to elect senators womenblacks gained right to vote quotgolden agequot didn39t seem great to progressive reformers blamed parties for corruptioninef ciency Attacked quotboss rulequot pressed 4 primary elections to give voters power to choose candidates Undercut dominance of party org win party as a whole G What Do the Parties Stand For Party polarization greater agreement on policy stands within each party and sharper policy diffs bt Dems and Reps Reps believe in strong business oppose welfare want opportunities for ppl to build up own wealth and free selves from govt intervention quotownership societyquot Tax cuts for indivsbusinesses lower taxes to shrink govts revenuehinder ability to create new programs favors wealthy helps economy grow Want private solutions to probs instead of govt interference Favors restricting labor unions bc they are an arti cial barrier to working of free market Supporters are conservatives esp Christians white southerners amp rural ppl Dems believe govt can lower inequality that social services should be run by govt and not privatized tax cuts should help needy instead of rich Believe fairness requires reducing economic inequality amp gov should offer safety net Favor gov enforcing civ right for blacks abortion rights enviro action Stresses need to invest in schoolsaim for equal opportunity Supporters are teachers trial lawyers liberals poor ppl Northeast and West coasts minorities labor unions Neither party is very consistent Reps who usually oppose govt interference ask for action to limit the things they oppose Dems who ally w govt want govt to stay out of ppls personal lives abortion LGBT Sometimes a result of effort to get more support H Parties Are Shaped by Their Environment Also grow out of powerful impact of environment on party dev One of most important forceswho has right to vote Two quotmain rulesquot federalism and sep of powers affect parties Federal system states have number of indep powers permits survival of local loyalties and traditions Before Progressive reforms parties selfregulated now they are bound by rulesregs nation39s political culture is the set of political values and expectations held by its people Americans tend to distrust parties encourages candidates to campaign as indivs rather than members of their party Econ trends affect parties 0 Income inequality has increased increased ability of wealthy to donate to campaigns Chapter 2 The American TwoParty System 0 Most Americans see politics in pairs 2 parties 2 candidates 2 sides of an issue 0 Other democracies support 1 or many parties and when 1 party can t win 2 or more form coaH ons In US minor quotthirdquot partiesindep cands sometimes affect elections 0 In 2000 Green Party39s Ralph Nader took enough votes from Dems to give win to Rep G W Bush 0 For most of US hist since era of good feelings 18205 only 2 parties have realistic shot at winning 0 Rapid rise of Repub Party 1854 shows this instead of being 3rCI party replaced Whigs in 2 yr A The National Party System two major parties have been close competitors in pres elecs Not since reagan 1984 has a pres won by more than 10 of vote GOP Grand Old Party aka the Rep party Congressdiff story for late 19005 dems dom both houses most of time Since 2000 parties exchange control more regularly B The 50 State Party Systems Pattern of close comp at natl level coexists w longtime oneparty dom at lower levels a Measuring State Party Competition Use index created by Austin Ranney ang 3 indicators of party success of pop vote 4 gubernatorial cand of seats held in each house of leg length of time of time party held both governorship amp majority in state leg picks up some trends more fully than others based on state elections so is not distorted by landslide victoriesother events at natl level b Limits on Competitiveness lncumbency even less comp below state level congressional districts have greater electoral security avg success rate for incumb since 1964 is 93 many reasons incumbency is valuable incumbs learned how to bene t from perks of holding of ce name rec media attention services to constit ease of fundraising experince from prev campaign discourages potential competitors from running c And Other Reasons for Limited Competitiveness in past decade state legs used computer programs to redraw leg districts for selves and House members redistriciting makes them safer by quotchoosing their own votersquot new patterns of residential mobility are major cause of decline in comp people are more ableinclined 2 move near likeminded people areas become homogenous has added to geo divergence in loyalties voluntary political segregation challengers cant raise enough campaign money when incumb is reelec bc they work hard 2 serve district consits are wellrepped when incumb expects to win easily less incentive to pay attention to voters39 needs C What Causes a TwoParty System a Institutional Forces Duverger39s law argues plurality of elecs in singlemember districts tend 2 prod 2party systems Singlemember dist one cand elected to each of ce Plurality elect cand w largest of votes wins even if not majority US system is singmemb w plur elec only cand w most votes wins Minor parties see no point in running w no shot of winning Nature of presidency sustains Duverger39s law Prez most visible singmemb dist in country main prize of US politics only one person elected at one time Other democracies have parliamentary syst w governing cabinet make up of of ppl repping many parties In syst w single exec minor parties weakened bc no realistic chance of prez b quotDualistquot Theories Basic duality of interests in US society First E nancecommerce v W frontiersmen then N v South then urban v rural amp socioeconomic divisions Differs from multiparty systs in whether duality is expressed in all aspect of elec process or just in creationfunctioning of govt c Party SelfProtection Major parties supp systems that make it hard for minor parties to do well Lack of openness to new groupsadaptability to changing conditions If minor party adopts issue important enough 2 challenge major party major party just adopts issue D Exceptions to the TwoParty System a Nonpartisan Elections One of Progressive movement39s achievements remove party labels from many ballots mostly local elec Most cities use nonpartisan states use for electing judges Parties have to work harder to tell voters which cand is with their party Researchers thought it gave advantage to repub bc more likely to be able to afford publicity but might also give minority bene ts bc takes away party cue that reminds majority voters to choose their cand Reduce voter turnout weaken policy links bt voters and their legislators b Areas of OneParty Monopoly ln past Deep South were best examples of 1party dom Most of history maj parties divide voters roughly along socialdemographic lines Local constit may be too small 2 contain diversity to support both parties quotsafequot dem districts in poorer older amp black neighborhoods of large cities quotsafequot repub dists in small towns rural heavily white Christian amp southern areas alt may be local party loyalty that overrides socioecon status amp partisanship once party is est in area weaker party may have dif culty overcoming strong party39s adv begin w enduring loyalty strong attachment ppl set in their ways inability 2 win elec limits ability 2 fundraiserecruit attractive cands affected by media coverage of natl party may rob local party chance to grow based on own issuescands c Minor Parties long history but rarely win Libertarian party has been strongest votegetter in past quarter century but never won anything Sometimes shifts balance in important race eg GWBush winning in 2000 Vary greatly in purpose origins levels of activity d Differences in Ideology Most are driven by issuesideology but differ in naturescope Some are v spec amp targeted like banning abortions amp increasing Christian principles Socialist parties have programs that demand sweeping changes like end to class privcapitalism Some argue on behalf of enviro peace and social justice e Difference of Origin Some were literally imported to US like early Socialist Party came from radicals who ed Europe Some were homegrown channels of protest formed from social inequality and econ hardship in US Some began as splinters or factions of the major parties who disagreed w their parties policies v strongly f Differing Purposes Some aim to educate public getting votes is merely a sideline Many accept defeat bc they refuse to change their principles to win Others are serious about winning of ce but goals are local g What Difference Do They Make Some argue they deserve credit for number of policy programs that were sugg by minor party amp adopted by major lmpact is limited but they still attract some voters Result of major party failing to re ect desireneeds of their constits Tend to gain supp when they promote attractive ideas major parties have ignored h The Rise of Independent Candidates Dissatisfaction w major parties produces indep candidacies Most successful Ross Perot key ingred was money to organize at grassroots level Much support came from voters unhappy w major candidates Later tried to organize Reform Party failed Maybe bc familiarity is not always great Spent much less than before Harder for orgs to supp many cands rather than just one E Will the TwoParty System Continue 2party syst is secure in US minor parties not gaining ground minor parties face huge nance disadv enormous cost of mod campaigns restricts exposure to highly visiblepersonally wealthy indivs pres cands can still receive public funding if they win 5 of pop vote multiparty system could bene t Us politics voters have more choices more views expressed in party platforms give minorities conf that their voices are being heard however could also damage when threshold for ballot access lowered extremists are better able to compete when govt is coalition of several parties voters need to anticipate compromises party will make might vote for party more extreme to in uence compromise votes more directly translated to leadership in 2party syst though sep of powers limits it coalition govs can be unstable multiparty govt would require major change in electoral institutions like singmemb presplur elecs Ill Political Party in the Electorat party identi ers ppl who feel psychological attach to particular party 0 party identi ers partisans make up core of party support 0 more apt to vote in their party39s primary elecs and volunteer for their candidates using survey ppl are classi ed into 7 categories strong identi ers w Reps or Dems weak identi ers w Reps or Dems independent quotIeanersquot toward Reps or Dems pure indep de nition is based on people39s attitudes not actual voting behavior strong idents usually vote for their party but are attached to idea of party not indiv cands party elec39s relationship w other sectors party or and party in gov closecooperative orgs and cands ask their idents for contributionsvotes during campaigns but don39t keep in touch otherwise idents in turn feel no obligations to party org other than to vote for its cands if they want give parties continuing base of support so party doesn39t start from scratch in each elec determines most of party39s noms by voting in primaries potential source of activists keep party alive by passing loyalty on to children not collection of indivs but coalition of social groups that shape choice of noms and stances on issues Chapter 7 Party Coalitions and Party Change 0 party IDs are not dist equally in US 0 small business owners mormons evangelical white Protestants lean towards Repubs single mothers af Americans highly edu professionals lean toward Dems types of ppl A The American Party Systems The First Party System b The Second Party System c The Third Party System d The Fourth Party System B The Social Bases of Party Coalitions a Regional Divisions b Atge c Race d Religion and Religiosity e Ethnicity f Sender C The Central Role of Issues in the GroupParty Linkage a Clear Differences Between the Two Parties Coalitions on Issues D The Development of the Sixth Party System a Major Changes in the Parties Supporting Coalitions b From Democratic Majority to Close Competition c How Can We Characterize These Changes Realignment Dealignment or What d Problems with the Idea of Realignment Chapter 11 The General Election Until mid19005 most campsparty centered Statelocal orgs prov most moneyvolunteers Reformers pushed for greater use of primaries Risky for parties to take sides in prims cands had to create own camp orgs to compete for party nom Statelocal orgs weakened volunteer ow dried up Freed cands from depending on party for vols advice A Campaign Strategy Key factors in gen elec differ from those in primaries In primary focus mainly on party electorate esp w closed primaries In gen elec audience much bigger more diverse longer time to observe cands Camp heavily affected by whether cand s party is minmaj in district Incumbs have greater name recogmore success getting media coverage Service provided by their govt paid staff amp paid travel tofrom districts give adv Often need do little more than stress their experience trustworthiness bene ts they bring Challengers don39t have experienced org proven fundraising skills etc Could buy experienced camp org by hiring polit consultants but most don39t have Cycle challenger lacks existing orgl to attract wellknown consultantsbuy media time cant reach many voters wont rise in pollsraise enough to afford either Can raise issues so things like aborthealth caretaxesmore imp for chaHenger Cands for open seats more likely to have competitive race B How Campaigning Has Changed a Professional Consultants Some are general others focused Focused dev of media messages Web design funraising polling organizing stage rallies coffee parties canvassing phone banks Typically work for mult camps at a time but usually for one party Function indep of party org but keep coop relat w party leaders b Sources of Information i Polls 0 Cands poll b4 running to assess voters viewsprobe for opp weakness 0 Once camp starts used to see what issues voters care abt most how cand s rst steps have affected negpos ratings 0 Tracking polls follow reacs of small sample of voters measure immediate responses to camp event new ad ii Computers 0 Provides sophist check on cand s beliefs 0 Combines pollstercanvasser data in databases determines which type of ppl most likely to be swayed by certain types of appeaB o Fundraisers can merge mailing lists from groupspublications whose mems likely to favor cand create targeted mail win hours C Methods of Persuasion The Air War a Television Consumes most of typ camp s budget In past cands bought large chunks of time for entire speeches Now TV cost incshorter attn spans polit messages condensed into 305ec Specialists target ad run times to desired demographics Cable TVcost effective effic for local camps Camps try to get most free media coverage as possible eg when on news Have to provide material considered quotnewsquot Stage events w drama confrontation exciting setting meetings w well know ppl b The Internet First used by camps in 96 now part of every major camp Can reach supporters directly collect emails Cheaper ads on sites like Youtube google Broadcast mediaefficient to reach large ppl Greatest strengthbreadth of reach also 1 of greatest weakness otherhigh cost c Direct Contact by Mail Text and Twitter i Direct Mail 0 Merge postal list of ppl of spec interest to camp direct personalized letters to tons of ppl likely to respond to partic appeal 0 Designed to be read by likeminded indivs at home can be emotionalin ammatory ii Email 0 Cheaper than reg mail rst used effectively by mccain in 2000 0 most messages targ at spec groups 0 both parties maintain extensive email lists iii Text Messaging o snail mail misses large of young ppl who change addresses every yr so texts have become pop 0 Obama s camp collection 1mi cells o Supporters got 520 textsmo targeted to indiv s interestslocations iv Social Networking Sites quotSocnetsquot o Cands have profs on FB to commun w supporters 0 Send camp message on FB urge recipients to FWD it to their network camp incr its reach exponentially for littleno cost v Twitter 0 2008 elec was rst for Twitter campaign use 0 tweets can be used to respond fast to opponent s attacks D The Ground War quotUnder the Radarquot a Canvassing and Phone Banks in machine days party orgs sent workersvolunteers to homes of ppl who might vote for party cand takes lot of volunteers to go door to door i Microtargeting o Repubs use commercial databases to collect data on mils of ppl s viewing habits mag subscrips buying prefs voting patterns 0 Allowed them to target ppl likely to support them 0 Phone contact is even quicker camps bring supporters to central location w phone bank to call people b Negative Campaigning Not new but concerning bc can be spread so much faster now Harsha ads get news coverage carrying message to even more people Can be esp memorableemotionally engaging can inc voter info and turnout c The 2004 Campaign Parties so evenly matched in HouseSenate and overwhelming maj of House incumbs expected to get easy wins parties and interest groups ignored most Cong races focused resources Most camps were still candcentered but there were signs of more partycent activity in the v competitive races Natl Rep party prepped for unprecedented ground war campaign d Democrats Regain the Advantage in 2006 Bush s approval rating was dropping bc of iraq war Dems bene ted from this e The Old and the New in 2008 Dem strength continued to grow Blackslatinos women urbanites upscale suburbanites liberals formed core of Obama victory f Backlash in 2010 Main predics of midterm losses by pres s party low pres approval ratingsbad econ Tide turned favored repubs E Do Campaigns Make a Difference Attract so much media attn money effort ppl assume they cause elec outcome 0 Research states that39s not the case a The Argument That Campaigns Matter 0 Some camps have obv madebroken a cand Canvassing has small but meaningful effect on turnoutvoters choices Doortodoor more effective than phone both better than mailings Diff elements of campaigns affect some voters diff than others depending on party ID and lvl of interest in politics b The Argument That They Don t News ads ground war offer wide range of con icting info abt cands o Ppl tend to ignore info that con icts with their own opinions c Some Tentative Answers Inforich enviro of politicslarge of weak partisansindep leaners hold potential for camps to shape voters perceps as much as ever 0 Impact of camp will cont to be limited by same forces as always voters tendency to pay attn to messages with which they already agree F Candidate Centered or Party Centered Campaigns Broadcast media needs large audience tends to focus on cands InternetTV ads avail to anyone who can afford it don39t need to work w pa y Cands and advisors not parties who make decisions in most camps Cands maintain own relationship w voters don39t use party org as intermediary Party orgs work to enhance appeal of indiv cands rather than run campaigns a Party In uence in Competitive Campaigns Parties are ghting back 0 Large amt of to natl parties in last 30yr have helped them to assist indiv camps w services Natl parties visibility has grown esp in competitive SenateHouse elecs b The Continuing Struggle Between Candidates and Party Organizations Bigger party role makes econ sense party orgs can distrib appeals for of cands at same time register voters to help entire ticket 0 Can buy media adsconsultant services for cands to use at costeffect pdces Coordinate Elec Day activities for all of party s cands prov poll watchers to guard against irregularities etc Efficiency is bought at cost of lim each cand s indep tho 0 Party orgscands don39t always have same goals 0 Party wants to max out of races it wins spends as little as possible on hopeless races Cands are committed above all to own victorygaining necessary recources Result is continuing strug bt party orgs and cands party in gov for control of camps In most elecs cands have won that ght Candcent campaigning has important effect on governing when they control own camps winning cands can dev personal rel w constits unfettered by party ties Free t oform alliances w interest groups enhance their ability to in pub policy In short candcent camps strengthen power of party in gov relative to party orgs Chapter 2 Financing the Campaigns Sen running for reelect spend avg of 9 each on camps Dev of expensive new camp tech professional consultants improved fundraise methods growing polarity of parties Sup Ct s campaign nance laws all help inc camp spending Until reforms of 705 much of used in camps was collectedspent in secret A How Much Money is Spent on Campaigns In ation reducing purch power of dollar a Presidential Campaigns 2008 pres race was most expensive campaign in US history began as wide open contest no sitting presVP was running Obama s staff worked to build rels w likely donors online raised so much Raised 750mi in 0708 most successful cand in history of camp fundraising Party orgs spend millions can put into pres races in 4 ways Coordinated spending spent by party org in coord w cand s campaign to buy stuff like media adspolling for campaign Independent spending partiesindivspolit groups can spend as much as they want to expressly supportoppose cand as long as they do it wout consulting their cand Parties allowed to split cost w cand s camp on hybrid ads that mention pres cand and other party cands Can mobilize voters through grassroots efforts b Congressional Campaigns lncumbs greatly outraiseoutspend their challengers Repub candsorgs usually hold fundraising edge over Dems in Cong camps 0 Size of adv depends on which party has most incumbs c State and Local Campaigns Much less is known abt spending in statelocal camps no central reporting agency comparable to Federal Election Commission FEC Camps for gov in large states often cost at least as much as Senate races B What is the Impact of Campaign Spending 0 Money matters more in early months of nom race for pres Does make real diff in Cong races C Where Does the Money Come From a Individual Contributors 0 Most of contrib direct to cands comes from indivs Before Reforms congpres cands could take unlimited from indivs Fear that big donors were getting something in return for their money pref treatment ranging from tax breaks to ambassadorships Cong passed Fed Elec Camp Act FECA lim indiv s donation to any fed cand to 1k 0 For 20yr seemed to work cong camps nanced by many ppl w small dona ons Had to find new ways to get lot of small donors to contrib Fat cat donors wooed by fancy shit small contribs usually solicited by phoneemail b Political Action Committees 0 Political groups other than party orgs whose purpose is to raisespend to in elecs Most are created by corps labor unions trade associations 0 Heavy hitters in elds of nance real estate health care energy communications Corpsunions only allowed to give to fed cands thru PAC PAC grew in part bc Reforms allowed PACs to give up to 5k per cand Reforms explic prohib corps doing business w gov to have PACs Fed court decisions FEC con rmed legality of PACs right of sponsoring org to pay overhead expenses as long as PACs polit funds are collectedkept in fund separate from the spons org s regular assetsrevenues Candsparties work hard to get PAC 0 Most PAC is intended to gain access for the giver assrance that the legislator s door will be open when group hopes to plead its case on legis 0 Not much evidence that PAC contribs affect recipients votesbehavior PACs generally supp legis who already show favor to PACs interests PACs give most of their to incumbents must compete for incumb s attn with many othe sources of in party leadersconstituentsother PACs o In tends to be greatest when they rep powerful interests in legislator s dist when not in con ict with hisher party s position when bene t they seek is of little direct concern to anyone else c Parties 0 At time of Reforms party orgs didn39t have enough to be big players in Congpres races 0 Parties allowed to make small contrib up to 5k direc to House camps and 43100 to Senate cands More subst is the coordinated spending funds spent on behalf of cands and in coordination w their campaign usually for stuff like TVradio adspolling Fed aw imits parties coord expenditure in each race Mems of party in gov have become imp campaign contribs in recent Cong eecs Party leadersmems of HouseSenate now expected to make major contdbs d The Candidates Themselves Cands as always spend personal wealth trying to win office e Public Funding Cong voted in early 705 to let taxpayers designate a dollar now 3 of taxes to match small contribs to cands for their party s pres nom o Intent was to reduce corruption by lim role of private funds Accepting pub funds requires cand to abide by low spending ms in each state s primarycaucus and for nomgen eec races as whole f Money in State and Local Campaigns State camps gen foow pattern sim to those at nat level Indiv donors are most imp source of cand s camp funds followed by PACs funds from state partiesIegis leaderscaucuses D Reform of the Campaign Finance Rules 0 Camp nance laws were imsy halfhearted not well integrated Revusion abt Watergate produced most extensive fed law on subject in US hist Federal Election Campaign Act FECA amendments Sup ct invalidated some of them in 76 Cong then revisedrepassed them 0 Put limits on fed camp contribsspending set up sys of pub fund for pres cands a Contribution Limits 0 To end quotfat catquot donors FECA im amt of an indivPACparty org could give dir to cand in each eec per year Apply only to fed camps pres and Congress contrib under these regs called hard or federal money funds raisedspent in accordance w FECA s rules Public Disclosure aim to make source of camp public felt voters could make more informed choice if they knew where came from FECA requ that congpres cands pub disclose spending and namesaddressesoccupations of all contribs of 200 All donatations to fed cand must go thrube accounted for by single committee Each cand must le monthlyquarterly reports on nances during campaign FEC was est to receive these amp make data avail Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Another way to remove quotinterested moneyquot from elecs Cong passed laws in 7176 to provide pub tax funding for pres cands To get cand for pres nom must raise 5k in contribs of 250 or less in 20 states to demonstrate braod pub support After that pub funds match each indiv contrib up to 250 Treats minor party cands diff receive only fraction of that total only after elec if they received at least 5 of vote Adds to difficulty of nancing even modest third party campaign Spending Limits Pres cands who accept pub funds in race must accept spending lims in all 50 states and in race as whole The limits haven t kept up w fastrising cost of pres camps Cong tried to lim spending in HouseSen camps also Sup Ct ruled that restrict on cand s spending infringed on cand s right to free speech Restricts only justi ed if cand takes pub funding The Loopholes That Ate the Reforms FECA amends of 79 action by FEC and Sup Ct steadily chipped away at framework of FECA reforms Independent Spending If you work w cand and run ad supporting them its treated by FECA as camp contrib But if you don39t consult w cand your right to free speech allows you to spend unlimited sums on ads Reasoning is that free speechfundamental in democracy and free speech costs to run through TVother media so Cong cant lim amt that groupsindivs spend on ads run independently of cand s campaign Since then natl parties have put most of camp into indep spending Ads funded by indep sp can expressly call for elecdefeat of a cand Party requ to segregate the staffers doing the indep sp from staffers working w cand Nothing to stop indep staffers from telling media abt the adshoping reports will convey the contenttiming of the ad to cand ndep sp poses challenges for democracy Tend to run negative attack ads cant be held accountable bc they re not running for anything cant be punished free to say whatever they want b Soft Money Cong amend FECA in 79 to help strength statelocal party orgs by letting them raisespend unim amts on partybuildingvoter mobilization As long as it was used for nonfed ie state or local it was called soft money Law interp to allow unim contrib not only to statelocal but to pass through natl party committees on way to state parties FECA prevented indiv giving more than 1k to fed cand but citizenscorpsunions could also give unim to party orgs as soft money Cant spend directly on fed camp but could pay for any nonfed portion of effort Essentially became way for indivgroup to launder large contribs thru party org Fat cats had reentered the scene was not law s intention for soft money to become a loophole but difficulty of monitoring uses of funds made it so Mass sums owed thru soft money from 19905 to 2002 when banned atfedlevel c lssue Advocacy Ads Orig de ned as any polit ad that did not include terms elect quotvote forquot quotsupport opposequot etc Wout these words courts said it wasn39t a campaign ad bc it didn t expressly advocated electing a cand Cited vital importance of free speech issue ads could be aired by indivsgroups using unim funding even while campaign was in progress In 96 DNC said issue ads could be seen as form of voter mobilizationparty building so soft money could be used to pay for them Another legal way to use big donations from corpsunionsindivs in fed elecs H M F What Did the 19705 Reforms Accomplish By 2002 money raised under FECA lims was swamped by mass of issue ads paid for by soft money and indep spending a Intended and Unintended Effects At rst seemed to achieve most goals Slowed growth of camp sp in pres races for abt 30 yr Contrib lims made small donations more valuable than ever to cands Broadened based of campaign funding opened process to pub scrutiny Worrisome unintended effects imbalance bt contribs to cands which are lim and unlim spending that soft moneyissue adsindep spending allowed 1k cap lasted until 2002 despite in ation make soft moneyindep sp more attrctive in long run failed to meet major goal of reducing in uence of quotinterested moneyquot b Effects on the Parties rst 2wks after FECA gen view was that it had harmed the party org treated parties w no more privilege than PACsother groups pub funding of pres camp went to cand not party bigger gap bt party orgpres camp since 96 loopholes like indep sp soft money and issue advocacy gave natl parties means to raisespend much more than ever before large amts went to TVradio ads voter mobi programs G Another Try The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act BCRA 2002 cong passed Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act BCRA banned soft money contribs to natl parties to cut off loophole around fed limits statelocal can still take from indivscorpsunions up to 10k per donor per year still collect unlim donations for use in state elecs also tried to shrink issue ad loophole if ad mentioned fed cand it was termed electioneering communication and would be regulated could not be aired Min 60 days of gen elec or 30 days of primary unless they were funded entirely by fed regulated soft contrib by indivs only applied only to broadcast media dir at targeted audiences could still use soft money for direct mailphone banksvoter registration BCRA incr indiv contrib lim to 2k for fed camps raised overall lim on indiv contribs to candspartiesother polit committees combined and provided that lims would rise w in ation Most Cong Dems voted for bill Dem leaders worried it would undercut fundraising a More End Runs 527 and 501c Advocacy Groups Dems looked for new ways to put soft into camps 5275 refers to provision of US tax code that allows certain taxexempt groups to accept unlim contribs and spend wout lim on eec advocacy as long as they don39t expressly call for eecdefeat of specif canddon39t coord activities w fed candparty these groups could register voters run GOTV drives broadcast issue ads send direct mail dist voter guides etc small groups of rich liberals formed sever 527s hoped to raise soft money contribsrun ads to supp Dem pres nom when hisher funds ran low after primaries Cong requ 5275 to disclose their contributorsexpenses FEC further regulated fundraising treating them more like PACs As result several orgs incl US Chamber of Commerce moved polit act from 5275 to another category of groups organized as nonpro ts called 501cs Had adv over 527s as long as fed camp activity is not their major purpose They don39t have to disclose the names of their donors Most got funding in v large multimil donations from indivsgroups Each is useful for certain kinds of fundrasing might use 501c to run ads w money that givers don39t want to be disclosed 527 for advocacy adsground war activities and a PAC to give direct but lim contribs to cands b The National Parties Survived BCRA Nonparty groups replaced natl parties as movers of soft money Natl parties found alt ways of raising funds lnternet fundraising Statelocal party orgs haven t fared as well fundraising declined Many reduced broadcast activity direct mail phone banking BCRA did force parties to change ways they raisedspent Adapted inc fundraisingdev more intensive programs to reach small contdbs cBundHng Tho indiv contribs are lim an indivgroup can solicit large 5 of these indiv donors combine bundle their contribs deliver to camp take credit for much larger sum ls clearly an end run around the contrib limits but hasn39t been ruled illegal Most bundlers are corp CEOs lawyers lobbyists and developers who have interests in federal policies d Citizens United and Super PACs Sup Ct helped dismantle BCRA w ruling ending in Citizens United c FEC Ruled that corpslabor unions can spend as much as they want from own treasuries on indep expenditures for speech that is an electioneering communication or that expressly advocates the electiondefeat of a presCong cand Argued that wout this corpother groups free speech would be limited Widely assumed that this ruling would open oodgates to massive corporate camp spending and mechanism for it quickly appeared Corporatefunded groups began setting up super PACs to fund ads Can accept unlim contribs incl from corpsunionsindivs for purpose of indep spending can directly advocate electiondefeat of cand as long as they don39t coordinate it with the candsparties 2011 FEC allowed candselected office to raise for super PACs w restrictions some super PACs were set up solely to promote elec of single pres cand led by cand s former staffers like other PACs super PACs were supposed to report who gave them but they can spend through 501c nonpro ts which don39t have to report donors fears of corp spending blitz not realize as usual majority of spent in campaigns came from cand s campaigns and party orgs not from outside groups whether these groups will compliment or supplant party committees remains to be seen groups can be more exible than committees yet can tap big party contributors for own fundraising purposes mostof their funds come from few million dollar donors and they can operate v much like cand s committees but wout contrib limits e State Regulation and Financing cands for state office are gov by 50 sets of state regs as of 2012 most states had rules limiting indivPACcorpunionparty s contribs to campaigns H Has Campaign Finance Regulation Made a Difference In some ways has had an effect compared to before FECA citizenscand s opponents now have have better opp to learn who s giving in campaigns Not rly transparent bc 501c groups can hide names of donors and groups running indep spending ads can form using names that don39t actually say who they are Tho contribs dir to cands are limrestric reformers are frust by ability of corpsunionsother groupsindivs to put much larger amts of into campaign ads To those who support Sup Ct rulings that s the way it should be free speech is more important than effort to lim corruption l Money in American Politics Before and after these reforms has played bigger role in us elecs than in most other democs Sheer size of constituencies in US leads cands to buy expensive mass media time Large of elec offic plus frequent primarygen elecs leads to year round elec indust Fundraising occupies great deal of cands time even after they re elected which takes pub officials time away from considering needs of public and may give big contributors undue in uence on pub policy Fact that cands dom the fundraising in US camps gives them greater indep from their party orgs once they take office Parties are working hard to incr their role in raisingspending of camp Ingenuity was sorely tested by FECABCRA now by citizen s united ruling Chapter 9 How Parties Choose Candidates 0 Primary electorate chooses which cand will run for of ce under party label 0 In rest of world cands elec by party leaders activists or elec of cials A How the Nomination Process Evolved First 110yr of US cands nom by party caucuses then by party convs a Nomination by Caucus Early yrs parties held local caucs to choose cands for county of ce Caucs of likeminded partisans in Cong cont to nom presVP cands Generally informal no procedure to ensure all major gures particip b Nomination by Convention Caucs seen as aristo elite ignored pub opinion 1831 AntiMason party held natl conv to nom pres cand Jacksonian Dems help conv in time for 1832 elec From then on convs were main means of nom pred cands Composed of delegates chosen by statelocal party leaders c Nomination by Direct Primaries Progressives wanted voters to selec their pa rty s cands for of ce 0 Some south states already used prims to legitimize nomssettle internal disputes Progressives used it as maj weapon against political monopolies Deisgned to democratize nom process many hoped it would cripple polit parties Took party org s main power nom of cands gave to voters Not 1st cause of party weakness but did undermine power further B The Current Mix of Primaries and Conventions Convs not common but used in contest for presidency Every state uses prims to nom at least some state cands most use it exclusively C Types of Primaries a Closed Primaries Voters have to reg as Dem or Rep prior to election 0 Receive primary ballot of only own party when voting 0 About dozen states use this most others used semiclosedsemiopen voters can change party reg at polls or declare party pref at polling place 0 Given chosen party s ballot can become quotpartisan for a dayquot b Open Primaries Can vote wout having to publicly state which party they favor 0 Get consolidated ballot or ballot for every party select party in privacy of voting booth c Blanket Primaries Washington adopted in 1935 gives voters even more freedom 0 Names of all cands appear on ballot as in gen elec allows split ticketing i quotTop Twoquot Primaries o 2008 Wash moved to this not only do all cands names appear on same ballot top two vote getters for each of ce regardless of party adv to gen elec 0 CA adopted sim sys in 2010 Louisiana uses version for statelocal elecs When state shifts from one prim to other usually bc state party leaders are tryng to protect party s interests in the nom process under changing polit conditions Why Does the Type of Primary Matter 0 Closed prim re ects that citizens bene t from having clear choices in elecs Openblanket re ect that rigid party loyalties can harm democ Most party orgs prefer closed limits dangers of open crossing overraiding Crossing overcommon in open Cands take prim type into account when building camp Raiding is when voter vote for opposing party s weakest cands How Candidates Qualify How do Candidates Get on the Ballot o In most states by ling a petition State laws specify how many signatures it must have 0 Some have many rules to favor party insiders some have few Easier to get on ballot more likely that dissident cands will runcause problems Runoffs When Too Many Candidates Get on the Ballot Used to ensure maj winner to present uni ed face to elecward off challengers in gen elecs Recent studies show runoffs disadv minority groups What Parties Don t Like About Primaries Dif culty in Recruiting Candidates 0 If ambitious cand can challenge party fave in dom party s primary heshe less likely to run for of ce under minority party s label 0 Even harder for min party to get good cands in races they re likely to lose 0 Party orgs cant guarantee outcome of own primaries have less to offer cands The Risk of Unappealing Nominees Prims have much smaller turnouts may choose cand not appealing to broader turnout in gen elec o All cands are of same party voter cant use party ID to selec cands will be underinformed c Divisive Primaries Can create con ictreopen old wounds Esp damaging if losing cand runs in gen elec anyway as indepminor party cand Could get enough supp to destroy chances of rival 0 Don39t always weaken party might make winning cand even stronger in gen elec Large of safe House seats can inc chance of div prims d Problems in Holding Candidates Accountable Prims allow nom of cands hostile to party orgleaders opposed to platform or out of step with desired pub image 0 Prims greatly inc camp spending cost of contested prim is more than conv o Prims extend polit camps to length that can try patience of voters G The Party Organization Fights Back 0 Direct attempt to abolish prims would fail have strats to limit damage prims cause a Persuading Candidates to Run or Not to Run 0 Best way to control ensure party fave has no opponent Try to conv appealing but unwilling cand to run conv less desirable cands to stay out maybe w threat to block their access to campaign b Endorsing Candidates 0 Some stronger state parties offer preprimary endorsement to fave cands Often discourage other cands from challenging fave in prim Some states have laws to prevent endorsing cand before primary c Providing Tangible Support o If cant prevent challenge to fave cand has to give fave more advantages 0 Can urge activists to get publicity may pub ads announcing endorsements print reminder cards for voters to take to polling booths H Candidates and Voters in the Primaries a Many Candidates Run without Competition 0 Large of prim cands win noms wout contest 0 Most imp determ of competitiveness in prim is party s prosp to win gen elec Cand s rarely ght for right to get beaten 0 Prims less compet when incumb is running when party endorses when state rules make it harder to get on ballot lncumbs have name recogmedia coverage important in uences b And Voters are in Short Supply 0 When compet is scarce so are voters Turnout esp low in min party s prim Race for nom lacks drama of gen eec less excitement lower turnout Primary electorate is distinct many are strong partisansactivists more educated more politically interested I The Impact of the Direct Primary a Has it Made Elections More Democratic More ppl vote in prim than partic in convcauc more democratic in that sense 0 Democratic potential lessened by unopposed cands and low voter turnout Prim tends to discourage partic wouldbe cands put off by cost difficulty 0 Parties count on fact that large voters will be party loyalists in by party leaders b How Badly Has It Harmed the Parties 0 Risk of divisive prims added camp fundvoter mobi required strain party resources create headaches for leadersactivists 0 Direct prim has redist power win parties 0 Progressives goalshift nom power from party org to voters but bc cands can win nom even when defying party org idea of party discipline loses credibility Undercuts ability to recruit cands also prevents disciplining partisans in office Empowers cands and party in gov at expense of party org C Is the Primary Worth the Cost 0 Methods used to nom have broad impact Jacksonians promoted conv system to get control of party from Cong party leaders Progressives used pref for direc prim to take contrl of partygov from party org 0 Those who control noms in uence polit agenda Chapter 10 Choosing the Presidential Nominees A The quotInvisible Primaryquot Srs pres cands start sev yrs before eec taking pollsraising finding active supporterscompete for services of consultants Compet heats up in months before 1st primscaucuses lnvis prim is process of early fund raisingjockeying for media attnpub supp Party leadersactivists watch decide which cands to endorse Cands who survive then face state primscauc to win delegates to supp them at natl conv The Adoption of Presidential Primaries 0 When parties began nom cands in natl conv real power was w statelocal parties Chose delegates to natl conv told delegates which cand to supp 0 FL passes 1st pres prim law in 1901 many states followed Turbulence in the Democratic Party 0 1968 Dem natl conv was riotous strugg w civ rightsViet war conv nom d party leader s choice Hubert Humphrey hadn t run in any prims activists win party said he did not re ect views of most dems to make peace w critics agreed that next conv s delegates would be selec in more opendemocratic way McGovernFraser Commission made maj changes to inc in uence of insurgent Dems To comply many states dropped caucconvs restarted use of prims Tried many diff ways of selec nominees Many state leg responded by changing state elec laws to require prim elecs for both parties Presidential Primaries and Caucuses Today 0 Each state decided whether to choose delegates to natl conv in prim elec or series of caucuses ln state prim voters go to polling place choose their party s pres nominee 0 Pop vote for each cands determines of state s delegates that will supp that cand at natl conv ln state cauc party lDers gather debate which cand will be best 0 Then choose delegates to communication pref at higher levels county congress dist then state 0 Final delegate choice determined at state lvl Cands campaign diff in states w cauc vs prim The Race for Delegates Timing and Momentum Winning early states creates momentum attracts media coverage 0 State legs know having early primcauc bene ts state 0 Media interest brings journalists who spend and campaign to state state s concerns get natl attn Nom process has become frontloaded as states move primcauc earHer Candidates Strategic Choices 0 Diff types of cands face diff challenges 0 Early frontrunner must be successful at start lest supporters lose con dence b Comparing the Clinton and Obama Strategies 0 First seen as old pro backed by party s best advisers who would demolish young guy 0 Old pros fought among selves young guy s advisers had disciplineunderstood tech 0 Clinton expec her experience contacts support from party loyalists to help her 0 Obama knew he couldn39t challenge her strengths so had to go diff route 0 Put enormous amt of effort into states where Dems don39t usually campaign Clinton had fewer advs Superior game plan got enthusiasm from volunteers extensive organizational work by staff details knowledge of Dem s nom rules use rules to adv made difference c What is the Party s Role 0 Party orgs interests in nom process not always same as those of pres cands Statelocal parties want nom who will bring voters to polls for statelocal offices 0 In most prim states cands set up own delegate slates so 1st loyalty is to cand Dems tried to enhance party s role in 84 by creating superdelegate seats at natl conv for Dem govsmems of Con currentformer presVPs all mems of DNC D Voters Choices in Presidential Nominations Move to primscauc has inc citizen partic in nominating pres a Who Votes Turnout varies state to state and across diff years Turnout is better in states w higher edutrad of twoparty competition 0 Voters most likely to partic in closely fought early races b Are Primary Voters Typical o Turnout lower in prim thn in gen elecs esp after party noms are mostly wrapped up 0 Critics say prim voters not rep of public cands are selected by unrepresentative group of citizens Pres prim voters more edu wealthy older than nonvoters but so are gen elec voters 0 Better comparison is w party lDers bc prims are when party elec chooses noms Just as w most prim voters voters in pres prims usually older more edu af uent better integrated into community more partisaninterested less likely to be minorities c Do Voters Make Informed Choices d 0 Comp to gen elec voters seem to pay less attn to campaignknow less abtcands Esp in early contests are in by cand momentum form bandwagons Cand s personal char in voters in prims issues have minor impact Argument says prims are series of contest decided on shortrun super c consids Most ppl think this is too strong an indictment voters respond w some rationality to challenge of choosing among multi cands in short camp wout guide of party labels 0 Prim voters often nd only minor issue diffs among cands want to pick most likely to win presidency Do Primaries Produced Good Candidates 0 Older nom sys tended to favor mainstream politicians who were acceptable to party leaders incl some cands who earned nom thru party loyalty instead of appeal or skills Primaries more likely to give adv to cands with name recog who have supp of issue activistsppl w intensely held views 0 Current sys gives pres cands better chance to demonstrate pub support raise more camp test staminaability to cope w pressure Tho performance in prims may not be good indicator of competence in White House 0 Frontloading also inc risk that party voters will choose nom too hastilylater regret On to the National Conventions Once delegates chosen in primscauc delegates go to party s natl conv and vote for res nominee 0 By then nation know which cands won most dels in primscauc every conv since 1968 has nom d that winner on 1st ballot Roots of the Conventions Natl party conv is oldrespected institution but began as a power grab Took control of pres selec process from cong leaders What Conventions Do Warms up w keynote address by party quotstarquot showcases appealing members reaches dramatic peak w nom of presVP cands i Formalizing the Presidential Nomination 0 Before 705 reforms dels would choose party s nom during natl conv 0 When 1st round of balloting didn39t prod majority for one cand intense bargaining followed among remaining candsstate party leaders 0 Leading cands worked to keep own support while negotiating for votes of state dels that had come committed to other cands 0 Recently one cands has won maj of del voters well before conv so only one round of balloting is necessary at conv ii Approving the Vice Presidential Nominee 0 Day after pres nom chosen dels vote again to choose VP nom 0 Its ceremonial pres noms choose own running mate rati ed by conv iii Approving the Platform 0 Platform is statement of party positions on range of issues 0 Plat committee often asks for public comments way before conv 0 Usually re ects cand s viewsbargains they39ve made to win support 0 Lists policy prefs of various groups in party s supporting coalition o More than laundry list of promises often de ne major diffs bt parties 0 Can provoke heavy debate bc many dels care deeply abt this statement of party s beliefs on issue like abortion taxes pollution global involvement etc iv Launching the General Election campaign 0 Final business is to present party s pres cand to American public 0 Cand hopes that glowing portrayal presented by conv will prod boost in pub support called quotconvention bouncequot F Who are the Delegates a Apportioning Delegates Among the States Natl parties determine of dels sent by each state Reps allocate more equally among states Dems weigh size of poprecord of Dem support b How Representative are the Delegates Have never been cross section of US citizens of even of parties voters White men well educated af uent often overrepped at convs Dem dels have more labor union membsblack ppl Reps have more protestants and small business owners i Demographics 0 Since nom reforms dels have become more rep in some ways less rep in others 0 Dems used affirm act plans after 1968 to incr presence of women blacks young people HPoHUcalExpedence o Might assume delegates would return to conv after conv but not the case 0 Post reform rsttimers jumped to 80 0 Most are conv newcomers but mass maj are longtime party activists HLlssues o Conv dels more extreme in viewsmore aware of issues than most voters o Dels views are polarized by party o Reformers wanted new sys to better rep views of most party lDers did not make much diff in that regard 0 Real effect has been to link selec of dels more closely to cand prefs 0 When issue oriented cand does well in primscauc more issueoriented activists become conv dels 0 May not make convs more rep of PIE but offers clearer choices to voters iv Amateurs or Professionals 0 Reforms also expec to result in dels w diff approach to politics 0 Some evidence that Dem reforms reduced of professionals 0 However party moved to change that by adding superdelegates o Dels have remained strongly committed to parties and their goals 0 May be that for both profam being in this v public party pageant strengthens del s commitment to party s aims v Who Controls the Delegates 0 Would not matter how rep dels were if they were pawns of party leaders 0 For most of history of party convs this was the case 0 State party leaders no longer control their delegations 0 Most powerful force prev state leaders from controlling conv is that dels in both parties now come to conv already committed to a cand G How Media Cover Conventions H Convs have been reshapedrescheduled to meet media s needs but media attn has declined sharply in recent years 0 Early days of TV networks desperate for content televised party convs live in full Became major story thru which TV news could dem its skillsprovide pub service Priceless opportunity for party leaders to reach voterslaunch pres campaign Do Conventions Still Have a Purpose 0 No longer place where parties actually choose their pres nom that happens in primcauc Bc cands must mobilize groups of activistsvoters to win primariescaucuses and bc many of those groups are concerned w certain policies nom reforms made issues more important in conv politics 0 Many dels arrive committed to cand AND cause 0 Natl convs are living symbols of the natl parties I Should We Reform the Reforms Use of prims was effort to break up concentrations of party power 0 However can create internal divisions in party org low turnouts in primscauc may increase in of wellorg groups on ideological extremes By time most voters know enough abt cands to make informed choice noms have already been chosen Cands must invest such large amt of time energy in nom process that the winner can arrive at conv personally nancially exhausted No going back though bc old system controlled by statelocal party leaders who were out of touch w the electorate o Kept many voters and activists out of crucial 1st step in picking pres Violated desire for more open democratic politics 0 Did not help pres cands prepare for most powerful leadership job in world a What Could Be Done 0 Both parties feel pressure for more reforms to x probs Could create regional nominating events states in a given region would all schedule prims on same day 0 Might bring more coherence to state contests by limiting number of dates they can be held reduce enormous strain on cands Has drawbacks like choosing which region would go rst 0 First region to vote would have disproportion in on nominations Other option is to hold natl primary in which all primscauc take plce on same day Srs drawbacks adv to cands w most money and greatest name recog those able to campaign in many states at same time reduces role of party orgstates as well 0 No right answer only series of options that all favor some candsinterests disadvs others
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'