Political 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.
Possible Exam Questions
- Nobody has suggested any yet.
Film: Crashing the Parties.
- Summary of the film:
Readings
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:
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.
- Summary: This study looked at the relationships between the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative parties in Britain. Adams and Merrill claim that when 3rd parties run it's against their own interest because the two major parties move their positions away from wherever the third party is. They discuss a Party's necessity of balancing its sincere policy positions with its need to appeal to the median voter. A third party influences this balance. If the 3rd party is central, the Left (Labour) party moves farther left to its 'preferred' position while the right (Conservative) party moves farther right. When the central third party moves to the left however, the other two parties respond by shifting their policies right; the Conservative Party to use its increased flexibility by moving towards its preferred position and the Labour Party in order to compensate for the balance change by moderating its position.
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.
- 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:
- Summary of Chapter 5:
- Summary of Chapter 6:
- Summary of Chapter 7:
