270 likes | 414 Views
Political Parties. Why parties?. Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates Organizing a Complex Government Educating Citizens Promoting Civic Participation. Party Systems. Timeframe Dominant Opposing 1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps.
E N D
Why parties? • Organizing the Election Process • Facilitating Voter Choice • Recruiting & Aiding Candidates • Organizing a Complex Government • Educating Citizens • Promoting Civic Participation
Party Systems Timeframe Dominant Opposing 1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps. 1829-1856 Democrats Whigs 1857-1892 Republicans Democrats 1893-1932 Republicans Democrats 1933-1968 Democrats Republicans 1969-now ---Democrats/Republicans---
Questions • Why two parties? • Why no dominance?
Why two parties??? • Duverger’s Law • Plurality voting systems • Fusion • Elimination
Why two parties??? • Alternative? • Proportional Representation
Why two parties??? • PR allows small parties to win seats
Third Parties • Can still influence elections
Third Parties • Ralph Nader (2000, Green Party) • Results • Bush 47.9% (271 electoral votes) • Gore 48.4% (266 electoral votes) • Nader 2.7% (0 electoral votes) Was Nader a spoiler?
Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained
Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained • Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush
Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained • Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush • Also…don’t forget uncounted military ballots!
Other notes on 2000 • No recount in Gore victories in • New Mexico (Gore won by .06%) • Wisconsin (.22%) • Iowa (.31%) • Oregon (.44%) • Numerous irregularities reported in Wisconsin • State law guarantees right to recount if <.5%
Third Parties • Ross Perot (1992, independent) • Results • Clinton 43% (370 electoral votes) • Bush 38% (168 electoral votes) • Perot 19% (0 electoral votes)
Third Parties • 1992 Outcome
A spoiler? • Perot voters…(without Perot running) • 38% would have voted for Clinton • 38% would have voted for Bush • 24% wouldn’t have voted
A spoiler? • Perot voters…(without Perot running) • 38% would have voted for Clinton • 38% would have voted for Bush • 24% wouldn’t have voted • Or spoiled… • 36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he had a chance
Why no dominant party? • End of the “New Deal Coalition” • Secret Ballot • Primaries • Merit System
Third Parties • Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party) • Results • Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes) • Dole 41% (159 electoral votes) • Perot 8% (0 electoral votes)
Two solutions… • Run-off elections
Two solutions… • Run-off elections
Two solutions… • Run-off elections
Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting
Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting • Ireland (1990 presidential election) First Preference Final • Robinson 39% • Lenihan 44% • Currie 17%
Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting • Ireland (1990 presidential election) First Preference Final • Robinson 39% 52% • Lenihan 44% 46% • Currie 17%
Two solutions • Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?