Political Parties - Revision history

192.17.213.108: adding category

2024-11-14T03:36:05Z

adding category

Elena at 23:27, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T23:27:32Z

Sjuist at 19:17, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T19:17:03Z

Akunsak at 19:06, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T19:06:54Z

Akunsak at 18:38, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T18:38:07Z

Rkristof at 22:30, 11 October 2008

2008-10-11T22:30:18Z

Rkristof at 15:23, 10 October 2008

2008-10-10T15:23:08Z

Acivetti at 21:20, 6 October 2008

2008-10-06T21:20:22Z

Acivetti at 20:50, 6 October 2008

2008-10-06T20:50:36Z

Acivetti at 20:45, 6 October 2008

2008-10-06T20:45:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, 14 November 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	:''Summary of Chapter 7'':		:''Summary of Chapter 7'':
		+
		+	[[Category: PS 240]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 A.I. Abramowitz and Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
-:''Summary'':In this article Abramowitz and Saunders are refuting an article published 4 years earlier by Green, Palmquist, and Schickler. in the Green and co. article they posit that party identification is based on social identification. Abramowitz and Saunders argue that there is much more to party identification that Green and co. talk about, and that ideology is actually very important when voting. Abramowitz and Saunders also speak of the change in voting trends throughout the nation, whereas green and co. previously said that ,outside of southern whites, voting has remained consistent since the 60s.
+:''Summary'':In this article Abramowitz and Saunders are refuting an article published 4 years earlier by Green, Palmquist, and Schickler. in the Green and co. article they posit that party identification is based on social identification. Abramowitz and Saunders argue that there is much more to party identification that Green and co. talk about, and that ideology is actually very important when voting. Partisanship has become much more ideology-based since the '70s. This has led to an increase in party loyalty as elections become more about party than about candidates. Abramowitz and Saunders also speak of the change in voting trends throughout the nation, whereas green and co. previously said that ,outside of southern whites, voting has remained consistent since the 60s.
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 L. Keele and Wolak, J. (2006). Value Conflict and Volatility in Party Identification. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 671-690.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'': Keele and Wolak find that instabilities in partisan identification may be related not to a lack of information about the parties but to conflicting core values creating ambivalence regarding party. If an individual holds two core values, each of the values represented by one of two parties, they will be conflicted and will be more likely to switch parties. They found a statistically significant effect on party instability among those who value both egalitarianism and moral traditionalism.
 J. Stonecash (2006). Political Parties Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisan Voting. Lynne Reiner: New York.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''Possible Exam Questions'''
-# Nobody has suggested any yet.
+# Explain the role of third parties in the American political arena.
 '''Film''': ''Crashing the Parties''.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 '''Film''': ''Crashing the Parties''.
-:''Summary of the film'':
+:''Summary of the film'': This film followed around a couple candidates from major third parties in the 2004 election. The green party, the constitution party, and the libertarian party. The film talk about how the parties campaign on such a limited budget, how the candidate for each party is chosen, and so on. also, the 2004 nominee for the green party, david cobb, is crazy
 '''Readings'''

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 A.I. Abramowitz and Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':In this article Abramowitz and Saunders are refuting an article published 4 years earlier by Green, Palmquist, and Schickler. in the Green and co. article they posit that party identification is based on social identification. Abramowitz and Saunders argue that there is much more to party identification that Green and co. talk about, and that ideology is actually very important when voting. Abramowitz and Saunders also speak of the change in voting trends throughout the nation, whereas green and co. previously said that ,outside of southern whites, voting has remained consistent since the 60s.
 J. Adams and Merrill III, S. (2006). Why Small, Centrist Third Parties Motivate Policy Divergence by Major Parties. American Political Science Review, 100, 403-417.
@@ Line 21: / Line 23: @@
 L. Keele and Wolak, J. (2006). Value Conflict and Volatility in Party Identification. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 671-690.
 :''Summary'':
 J. Stonecash (2006). Political Parties Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisan Voting. Lynne Reiner: New York.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 J. Stonecash (2006). Political Parties Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisan Voting. Lynne Reiner: New York.
-:''Summary of Chapter 1'':
+:''Summary of Chapter 1'': Stonecash introduces the observation that in the latter part of the 20th Century split-ticket voting and 'independent' partisan identification rose. The correlation between a vote for the House and a vote for a presidential candidate in terms of party declined through the '70s and peaked through the '80s, a trend that reversed in the 1990s. Stonecash asks the question of what caused this fluctuation in partisanship, and then goes on to discuss his explanation which is based on the changing identity of the Parties themselves. While in 1900 Republicans were primarily an urban, northern party and Democrats had a rural, southern/western base (structured around attitudes and responses to capitalism) during the Great Depression Democrats began to attract urban votes and a more diverse electoral pool. By the 1960s attitudes towards civil rights and the role of government caused a blurring of party distinctions, when conservative Democrats had more in common with conservative Republicans than they did with liberal Democrats, and vica versa. Ultimately, Stonecash describes how conservatives moved to identify with the Republican Party while liberals moved to identify with the Democratic Party, but this was a process of decades, and, Stonecash says, voters for each party were slow to recognize the changes in their party and realign themselves. Stonecash's theory is that the split-ticket voting from the '60s through the '80s was therefore an effect of the low distinction recognized by voters between the parties.
 :''Summary of Chapter 4'':

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is a page for students of [[PS 240]]. On 10/1 and 10/3 we discussed the role of political parties in modern elections. We also watched a film on 9/29: ''Crashing the Parties''.
+This is a page for students of [[PS 240]]. On 10/1 and 10/3 we discussed the role of political parties in modern elections.
-''Summary'' of the film:
+'''Possible Exam Questions'''
 '''Readings'''

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ''Summary of Chapter 4'':
 ''
-Summary of Chapter 5'':
+''Summary of Chapter 5'':
 ''Summary of Chapter 6'':
 ''Summary of Chapter 7'':