Political Parties October 10 th and 11th

1. Political Parties October 10th and 11th In 1870, political cartoonist Thomas Nast depicted the Democratic Party with a donkey in a New York City-based magazine, "Harper’s Weekly." Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, had already used the donkey on posters during his 1828 presidential campaign In 1874, another Nast cartoon in "Harper’s Weekly" used an elephant to represent Republican voters who were dissatisfied with the prospect of President Ulysses S. Grant running for a third term. Nast used the elephant in another "Harper’s Weekly" cartoon two weeks later. Other political cartoonists picked up on the animals as symbols of their respective political parties. Today, the Democrats use the donkey as an unofficial symbol, while the Republicans officially adopted the elephant as their party mascot. Nast’s 1870 and 1874 cartoons are shown above.

2. Major Topics • Role of Political Parties • Weaknesses of American P.P.’s • Rising Partisanship • Third Parties

3. Functions of Political Parties . . . Are they vital to liberal democracy? • Electioneering • Nominate candidates (but . . .) • Run Campaigns (but candidate centered) • this is key diff b/w them and Igs; • this is their “recruitment” function • what is liberal democ w/o competitive elections? • Helping voters • Registering • Getting voters to polls • Giving cues to voters • What’s democracy w/o voters? • Linkage Institution • The party is essentially a link between the citizen and the state; party is one of the devices which makes possible citizen influence on the policies of government. • what is democ w/o citizen control? Unify diverse interests By bringing together diff people and ideas they help establish the means by which a majority can rule—w/o them the pol process would be too fragmented; but b/c they are a relatively heterogeneous group, they also prevent tyranny of the majority and act as a modifying inflence • Organizing Government • Articulate policies • Coordinate policy making • Need support to get law making accomplished

4. The Conventional Wisdom: Versus: George Washington in 1796 farewell address: “Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit . . . exists under different shapes in government, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greater rankness and is truly their worst enemy.”

5. Remember James Madison: “factions” (read Political Parities and Interest Groups) are ______________ in a free system. Since you can’t eliminate them, you’d better just: _________

6. Things to remember about American Political Parties . . . . Our parties are relatively weak compared to other liberal democracies . . . Meaning: Decentralized—organized as a stratarchy Stratarchy is an organization in which each strata (or layer) is independent of every other strata. Each unit within a strata also is independent of every other unit within that strata.

7. Divided Government- A sign of P.P.’s weaknesses Meaning . . . They can’t call for elections, their governing power might be weakened by divided government, they don’t have many ways to discipline members who don’t vote the party platform, and anyone can say they are running on their ticket—like it or not

8. In other systems, (like Canada), a bad party member can be relegated to the back bench, s/he won’t get “parachuted” into a safe seat, some systems even say you can lose your seat if you don’t vote with the party and the biggest consequence of all: if govt loses something they have designated a “vote of confidence” new elections mean the MP may lose his or her seat

9. Why are parties weak? • Federalism • Separation of powers • Primaries • Political culture • pluralism (many access points) • Lots of media outlets (don’t need parties to get message out) • Stronger Igs (other options) • NO MORE SOFT MONEY

10. The history of soft money . . . . • FECA pus limits on contributions and spending: • Then, the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court in "Buckley v. Valeo" (1976) says limitations on donations to candidates are constitutional in order to meet the compelling government interest in preventing corruption or the "appearance of corruption". • BUT the Court said, limitations on campaign spending were an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech. • Additionally, Buckley v. Valeo held that only speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate could be regulated (but not a discussion of issues)

11. So . . . Beginning in the late 1970s, parties successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission to be allowed to spend soft money on non-federal party building and administrative costs. Soon, this use of soft money expanded to voter turnout and registration activities, and issue advertising. • Candidate X runs an ad that says, "I am a good person. Candidate Y is a bad person. Vote for me on election day." Because of the "Vote for me..." portion, this is a political ad, which must be paid for with "hard money." • Candidate Y runs an ad that says, "Candidate X has a record that includes awful things. If these awful things continue, people will come to your house, steal your money and shoot your dog. Be sure to vote on election day." Because the ad "educates" people on an issue and doesn't tell them to vote for a particular candidate, it's party building, and prior to BCRA was paid for by soft money.

12. Soft Money Prior to the 2002 passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold"), political parties and other organizations could spend unregulated "soft money" for a variety of activities, especially "issue advertising", i.e. advertisements supporting a candidate's positions or critical of an opponent's positions. • Since it was not actually received or spent by the candidate's campaign, and did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, there were no legal limits.

14. But . . . . With the ban of soft money under McCain Feingold (the BCRA) . . . • . . . parties have less money to spend on e__________ function • As a result, many of the soft money-funded activities previously undertaken by political parties have been taken over by various 5____________groups, which funded many issue ads, especially in the 2004 Presidential election.

15. Effect of Weak Parties . . . Hard for voters to indicate an approach to governing: Hard to hold one party responsible Elected officials don’t do what party platform says Tendency to middle A democrat in the south is not a democrat in the NW But . . . may lend itself to stability, be a better way to meet needs of all, and is in keeping with our individual emphasis

16. Signs that differences between our Political Parties are real

21. Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era April 2009

22. The parties themselves have divisions with in them . . . Here Come the Economic Populists http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/weekinreview/26uchitelle.html?pagewanted=all

23. Example- Jobs Plan- Obama eliminate tax breaks, Congress Dems- 5% tax increase on millionaires http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/politics/democratic-leaders-propose-millionaires-tax-to-pay-for-jobs-plan.html?pagewanted=2

24. Fiscal vs Social Conservatives- Divisions within the Republican Party • would argue that the government should be small, especially when it comes to taxation, government expenditures and deficits, and government debt VS. . . . • Argues that government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors

25. Parties are COALITIONS

26. How Bill Changed the Dems

27. The rise in partisanship in Congress Rancor goes back to mid 1980s when the D controlled House refused to seat the R winner in a close race Newt attacks House Speaker Jim Wright in 1987 and then organizes the Conservative Republican freshman class of 1994

28. The parties are becoming more distinct . . . . From the Economist: Motion dismissedJul 14th 2005American politics is both too rigid and too flexible AMERICAN society has been getting less like Europe's. It is growing faster and ageing more slowly, it is geographically more mobile and (dare one say it) has become more divided between rich and poor. Yet at the same time, the structure of American politics (though not its ideology) is getting more “European”. Political parties are becoming more coherent in their beliefs, and the system of government is more centralised. . . . This does not mean that party structures themselves have strengthened. In fact, in terms of raising money they are weaker than they have been throughout most of American history. But the parties are ideologically more distinct. And within the parties, politicians are more partisan and less diverse in their backgrounds. . . . American parties used to be ad hoc cliques and loose regional coalitions. Party grandees chose likely candidates on the basis of patronage and loyalty, not ideology. But the defection of conservative southerners from Democrats to Republicans—and the mirror-image move of north-eastern Republicans to Democrats—made both parties' ideologies much clearer. Now almost all conservatives are Republican and almost all liberals are Democrats. When George Wallace was governor of Alabama, he used to say that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. You could not say that now.

29. Party Unity Votes in Congress Meaning . . . they have low cohesion Which chamber is more cohesive?

30. Although that is changing . . .

32. Few people recognize that the previous bipartisan era was an aberration, not the historical norm. Consider, for instance, this plot of estimated party polarization in Congress:

34. Why is there a rise in partisanship? : • Shrinking political center as parties get more homogenous • Redistricting creates safe seats • Govt controlled by slim majority so imperative that loyalty be enforced • Congressional lifestyles—fewer live in DC so don’t socialize • Money: more time needed to raise money, so don’t socialize • Media lives on accentuating, and in some cases manufacturing, differences. “The twenty-four/seven media cycle means policymakers must take more time to feed the beast.” • American public

35. Redistricting creating safe seats As the economist says . . .. . . In a normal democracy, voters choose their representatives. In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way around www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1099030

36. How does redistricting create a growing partisanship in Congress . . . Again, from another Economist article: Partisanship is also evident in redistricting, which has increased the number of safe seats towards North Korean levels. In 2004, only 30-40 congressional seats are likely to be truly competitive—a quarter of the number in the 1990s. Since 1964, the share of House incumbents re-elected with over 60% of the vote has risen from 58% to 77%. This makes congressmen's politics more extreme. If your district is rock-solid, you have little reason to fear that voters will kick you out for moving too far from their opinions. The main threat comes from party activists, who tend to be more extreme in their views and can propose a challenger in primary elections. So the dangers of drifting too far to the middle outweigh those of drifting too far to the extremes. Partisan redistricting marginalises centrist voters, aligns the views of candidates more closely with extremists on each side and radicalises politics

37. SO . . .Reapportionment leads to redistricting . . . Which means safer seats which means more redistricting . . . . And now it’s gotten so nasty that partisanship leads to redistricting leads to more partisanship (you don’t even wait for reapportionment)

38. In the Texas redistricting fight . . . the democrats fled the state Texas Democratic representatives look out from a balcony at the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Okla., May 13, 2003, where they stayed after leaving Texas in protest over the Republican redistricting plan

39. Redistricting & Gerrymandering Gerrymandering: The redrawing of political boundaries to benefit one group at the expense of another. Minority-vote packing districts (minority-majority districts) struck down after 1990. Shaw v. Reno (1993): Struck down minority district in Georgia stating that ignoring traditional districting principles such as compactness and county or city boundaries to draw a minority district violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller v. Johnson (1995): North Carolina's efforts to create majority-minority district (African-Americans make up roughly 22% of population) In 1996 two more cases, in N. Carolina & Texas, affirmed that race cannot be dominant factor in redrawing district boundaries.

40. Gerrymandering in the 1990a

41. The earmuff shape of Illinois's 4th congressional district connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining contiguous by narrowly tracing Interstate 294

42. The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest, rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness. A second strategy, cracking, involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting block in any particular district. The strategies are typically combined, creating a few "forfeit" seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure even greater representation for voters of another type.

43. Example for a state with 4 equally-sized districts and a 36:28 Green (G) party majority. Top left: Magenta (M) party wins the urban district, while G party wins the 3 rural/suburban districts — the result expresses and enhances the fact that G is the state-wide majority party. Top right: by redesigning the 4 districts, there is a 2:2 tie, with G dominating the 2 new rural districts and M dominating the 2 new urban/suburban districts — closer to proportionality, but masking the fact that G is the state-wide majority party. Bottom left: Creating 4 mixed-type districts can yield a 4:0 win to G — a disproportional result considering the state-wide reality. Bottom right: With classical Gerrymandering techniques it is even possible to ensure a 1:3 win to the state-wide minority M party. How Gerrymandering can influence electoral results on a non-proportional system

44. Gerrymandering should not be confused with malaportionment, whereby the number of eligible voters per elected representative can vary widely If a proportional or semi-proportional voting system is used then increasing the number of winners in any given district will reduce the number of wasted votes.

45. Result . . . “safe seats” which means: Elections less competitive Incumbent advantage enhanced Less descriptive representation .

46. Effects of growing partisanship . . .remember this slide George Wallace, a former governor of Alabama, used to say there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties. But polarisation is growing in Congress. Republicans are now twice as likely to toe the party line in the House and Senate as they were in 1975. Democrats are about one-and a half times as likely. Ad hoc “coalitions of the willing” have become much rarer in domestic politics. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2172130

47. More effects of partisanship in Congress. . . Confirmation battles leading to declining judicial confirmation rates and 100s of posts not filled

48. More effects . . . Rise of the filibuster and talk of the nuclear option At first, “filibuster” referred to a “free booter” or “pirate”, who engaged in illegal activities for self gain; then it became “an endless discourse to impede the passage of an ‘unwanted’ congressional bill”.

49. 1999-2001 (election 1998) still divided: D president; R congress 2001-2003: (election 2000) R pres; R house; R senate which becomes D senate; * (50/50 after election, but who was a tie breaker. . . So R control until Jeffords switches to be an independent so 50 dems, 49 Rs and 1 independent) 2003-2005; (election 2002) R pres, R senate 51/48/1; R House (party govt) 2005-2007: (election 2004)R pres; R senate; R house 2007-2009 (election 2006) what happened? ___ Pres; _______ Senate; ____ House See: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

50. See: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm