29. How it works: in theory
Closed Primaries
Only voters registered with
party vote
Open Primaries
Open to voters from any political
party and Independents
Caucus or Local Convention
Party members meet in groups
to select delegates
Republican Party
States can award all delegates
to the winning candidate
Democratic Party
The state’s delegates are divided
proportionally.
or award delegates proportionally
30. Delegates from all states attend the
national convention, where they
vote for the party’s presidential and
vice-presidential nominees based
on the primary and caucus results.
Superdelegates—important party
leaders—also vote at the convention.
31. How it works: in practice
Trump Rubio Cruz Kasich
Caucus/
Primary
Winner
Take All?
At first glance, it may seem that American political parties exercise control over the candidates running for their nominations, as is the case here, with Donald Trump displaying his signed pledge to support the party’s eventual presidential nominee. The reality is quite different: Trump won the nomination over the objections of many party leaders, and several of the candidates who lost to Trump repudiated their pledges by publicly refusing to support Trump in the general election.
American political parties have three largely separate components: the party organization, represented here by Donna Brazile, interim chair of the DNC; the party in government, represented by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD); and the party in the electorate, exemplified by the crowd at a rally for Hillary Clinton. #DNC @TheDemocrats
There have been six party systems in the United States since 1789.
The Tammany Hall political machine, depicted here as a rotund version of one of its leaders, William “Boss” Tweed, controlled New York City politics for most of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Its strategy was “honest graft,” rewarding party workers, contributors, and voters for their efforts to keep the machine’s candidates in office.
Debate over Roosevelt’s New Deal programs established the basic divide between Democrats and Republicans that continues to this day: in the main, Democrats favor a larger federal government that takes an active role in managing the economy; Republicans prefer a smaller federal government and fewer programs and regulations.
Realignment: a change in one or more of the factors that define a party system, including the issues that divide supporters and candidates from each party, the nature and function of the party organizations, the composition of the party coalitions, and the specifics of government policy. Realignments typically occur within one or two election cycles, but they can also occur gradually over the course of a decade or longer.
When do realignments occur? New issues can cause realignments, but only if they are cross-cutting.
Cross-cutting: a term describing issues that raise disagreements within a party coalition or between political parties about what government should do.
Historical examples of cross-cutting issues that led to realignments include slavery, the gold and silver standard, and civil rights. In the 1950s and 1960s, the parties were split on civil rights. Segregationists had allies in both the Democratic and Republican parties, and so did supporters of racial equality. Ultimately, the Democratic Party moved to support racial equality and the segregationists shifted their support from the Democrats to the Republicans.
There is speculation that the internal party divisions on the issues of free trade, cosmopolitanism, and immigration, which were uncovered during the 2016 presidential primaries (emphasized by both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump), may be sufficiently cross-cutting to trigger a realignment.
527 organizations, named after the section of the tax code that governs them, are tax-exempt groups formed primarily to influence elections through voter mobilization efforts and issue ads that do not directly endorse or oppose a candidate.
Political action committees (PACs) are interest groups or divisions of interest groups that can raise money to contribute to campaigns or to spend on ads in support of candidates.
The party’s national committee seeks to reflect the party (because the party’s membership, or “base,” is the source of its power). Constituency groups like African Americans, Hispanics, senior citizens, people with strong religious beliefs, women, and many others make up each major party.
The amount PACs can receive from each of their donors and their expenditures on federal electioneering are strictly limited.
Unlike PACs, 527s are not subject to contribution limits and spending caps.
The Tea Party, despite having “party” in its name, is closer to a 527 organization in that it is loosely affiliated with a major party but does not run candidates of its own.
It is also important to underscore how limited the party organization is today in its ability to influence elections. Not only can the national party organization not compel state organizations to do anything, it cannot force committee members to do anything. Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz served at the pleasure of the committee, not the other way around. The Republican Party was unable to prevent Tea Party members from defeating its loyal supporters in congressional elections: Eric Cantor (representative from Virginia) and Robert Bennett (senator from Utah) were both victims of the party organization’s inability to influence the election.
This graph shows the current ideological differences between people who identify with the Democratic and Republican parties. The blue area shows the distribution of Democrats, and the red plot shows the same distribution for Republicans. This confirms that modern American political parties are polarized (the median, or average, Democrat is a liberal, while the median, or average, Republican is a conservative) and homogeneous (most Democrats are liberal or liberal-leaning, while most Republicans are conservative or conservative-leaning). How might these differences affect the kinds of candidates who compete for each party’s nomination and the positions they take during campaigns?
The Democratic caucus and Republican conference are where copartisans meet to resolve differences, coordinate strategy, and choose party leaders. The fact that the party leaders are elected by their party’s members means that members ultimately control their own fate. Current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is unable to force his rank-and-file members to vote or act in any way against their will.
Despite popular perception, the parties are still ideologically diverse, and this diversity undermines the extent to which a party is sufficiently able to deliver its party platform goals. For example, if members of the Republican Party (“Grand Old Party,” or GOP) do not want to address the issue of immigration, the party cannot force them.
Over the last several decades, ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans in Congress have increased significantly. However, even in the 114th House both parties still included a wide range of views. In light of these data, would you expect more or less partisan conflict in the modern Congress than there was in the early 1950s? According to these data, would you expect House members in each party to agree on what policies to pursue?
In terms of party ID, the parties have moved from rough parity in the late 1930s and 1940s to a period of Democratic advantage that lasted from the 1950s to the 1980s. Beginning in 2003, Democrats appeared to be opening up another advantage, although this change has eroded in recent years. What events might have caused these changes in party ID?
Americans are much more likely to vote for candidates who share their party affiliation. What does this relationship tell us about the impact of campaign events (including speeches, debates, and gaffes) on voting decisions?
Many groups, such as African Americans and white evangelicals, are much more likely to affiliate with one party than the other. What are the implications of these differences for the positions taken by each party’s candidates?
The Republican and Democratic Party coalitions have different priorities on many issues, ranging from environmental protection to deficit reduction—and on a few issues their differences are small, such as reforming the tax system and reducing the influence of lobbyists. Do these differences make sense in light of each party’s “brand name”?
Note that the Republican Party did not decide in 2016. Nonetheless, party endorsements have been strongly related to presidential primary results. Moreover, party support at lower levels is even more important.
The party organization seeks to identify and train promising political candidates for higher office: Joni Ernst and Cory Gardner both received ample support by party members before their elections to the Senate in 2014.
State parties can determine for themselves exactly how candidates will be selected and which voters can participate. More detail on primaries and caucuses are on the next slide.
Both political parties organize a series of candidate debates during their presidential nomination contests, giving candidates a chance to present themselves before a national audience.
One of the most important ways parties help candidates is by raising money to fund campaigns. In 2012, the DNC raised nearly a billion dollars to help reelect President Obama and to support other Democratic candidates. The RNC raised a similar amount. #DNC #RNC
In the 2015–2016 election cycle, party and leadership committees raised more than $1 billion in campaign funds. Although most of this money was raised by the national committees, the state, local, and candidate committees also raised significant sums. To what extent might these funds allow the national committees to force candidates to run on the party platform?
While it is true that few people ever read party platforms and that candidates are not bound by them, there is considerable evidence that elected officials try to achieve the goals outlined in their platforms once they are in office.
Within the government, politicians from the same party work together to develop an agenda and try to get it enacted. Here, President Obama meets with Democratic leaders from the Senate.
Agenda-setting can be a conflictual process in government, as copartisans offer differ on what issues they think are most important. Some Republicans would rather focus on immigration, while others emphasize the budget deficit, and still others prefer to focus on agricultural spending. Working together requires that some politicians be willing to allow their pet projects to slide down the party’s priority list
Parties serve as a bridge between branches of government, facilitating a more unified approach to governing by the parties. Members of the House, the Senate, and the White House must all work together to effect policy change. Parties help provide the initial linkage to help make this possible.
Voters can use the parties as a shorthand tool for determining whom to vote for in the fall. This is typically more easily achieved in times of unified government, when one party is in control of all three branches. Parties do not facilitate as much accountability during times of divided government, as voters may not be able to determine which party is responsible for policy changes they like and which is responsible for changes they don’t like.
Parties don’t exert total control over their members. Republican Party leaders could not stop then–freshman senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) from filibustering for 23 hours in an attempt to stop a budget compromise. @TedCruz
Minor-party presidential candidates, such as Ralph Nader in 2000, sometimes attract considerable press attention because of their distinctive, often-extreme policy preferences—but they rarely affect election outcomes. Nader ran again, as an Independent, in 2004 and 2008.
While parties are often maligned in popular culture, they are foundational in a democracy. As E. E. Schattschneider said, “Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.”
[Questions for the class: Why do people hold such negative views of parties? How would government work without parties? Why did the same Founders, who criticized political parties and factions, immediately create their own parties?]
Activist volunteers undertake most of the one-on-one efforts to mobilize support for a party and its candidates.
Party organizations at the local level coordinate support for the party’s candidates, but they don’t necessarily have to follow the lead of the national party organization.
In 2016, Representative Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) defeated 12-term Republican incumbent John Mica on the strength of a campaign that emphasized Mica’s support for Donald Trump’s views on women’s health and gun policy.
For the last twenty years, it seems as though all the news about political parties has been about conflict and stalemate. It seems as though political campaigns are increasingly negative, compromise on issues is rare, and Republicans and Democrats have divided into camps that are never likely to agree on anything. Is this trend new? What do the numbers say?
