View
217
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Polarization and American Politics: Polarization and American Politics: Is there a Center?Is there a Center?
Polarization ArgumentPolarization Argument
• Few moderates in electorate (is this true?)
• Partisanship plays greater role in mass voting
• Partisanship plays greater role in Congress
• Party candidates stake out more clear ideological differences
• “Culture war,” Red v. Blue nation, etc.
The Electorate, 1974The Electorate, 1974
Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group
The Electorate in 2004The Electorate in 2004
Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group
Polarized Partisans & ElitesPolarized Partisans & Elites• Partisans “sorting themselves”
• Gradual realignments since 1968
• Demise of southern Democrats
• Demise of New England Republicans
• Transition from economic to social issue divisions
• Institutions should reflect polarization
20
40
60
80
100
perc
ent
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Party Unity in US House Floor Votes, 1960 - 2000
% of Republicans voting with partyon such votes
% of Democrats voting with partyon such votes
proportion of all floor votes withmajority of one party againstmajority of the other
GOP trends since 1974GOP trends since 1974
Ideological self-placement of Republicans (excluding leaners)
Dem trends since 1974Dem trends since 1974
Ideological self-placement of Democrats (excluding leaners)
Polarization, 109th CongressPolarization, 109th Congress
Number of seats; classified by DW-Nom member’s voting score
Feelings about 'opposite' party's presidential candidate (thermometer scores)
Graph plots trends in Democratic identifiers’ feelings about Republican presidential candidates and Republican identifiers feelings about Democratic presidential
candidates.
Gap between Democrats and Republicans' Feelings toward Republican candidates for Congress.
Graph plots the gap between Democrats feeling thermometer ratings of Republican candidates, and Republican’s scores about Republican candidates.
When seen this way: Evidence of growing Polarization
Partisan voters more partisan
Partisan representatives more partisan
But what about every one else
Independents?
Another Picture of ElectorateAnother Picture of Electorate
Retreat from parties and party system (dealingment):
• More independents
• Independents qualitatively different than partisans
• Little mass support for two-party system
• Polarization an artifact of electoral system (safe seats & where people live…)
The Electorate, 1974The Electorate, 1974
Ideological self-placement of ‘‘everyoneeveryone’’. Percent w/in each group
A Centered Electorate, 2004?A Centered Electorate, 2004?
Ideological self-placement of ‘‘everyoneeveryone’’. Percent w/in each group
The Electorate in 2004The Electorate in 2004
Ideological self-placement of ‘everyone’. Proportion of electorate
Moderate Independents 26% of electorate (largest block)
Independents, 1952 - 2004Independents, 1952 - 2004
Responses to initial NES question, “Generally speaking…..”
Independents, since 1974Independents, since 1974
Ideological self-placement of independents (including leaners)
2008: The Electorate2008: The Electorate
• 40% (plurality of Americans identify as independent)
• 40% of independents (who respond) ID as “moderate” “ middle”
• 25% of all Americans (who respond) ID as “moderate” “middle”
• 22% ID as “liberal”
• 32% ID as “conservative”
Change since 1974Change since 1974
More GOP conservatives in Congress
More liberal Democrats in Congress
Fewer Democrats and Republicans in the electorate
Polarization without partisans
Without meaningful political competition
Reform Goals 50 yrs ago:Reform Goals 50 yrs ago:Build Responsible PartiesBuild Responsible Parties
• 1950s, Problem: weak, incoherent parties, lack of accountability
• 1950s Reform goalsCohesive, ideologically distinct partiesParty unity in legislatureGreater party role in campaign financeClosed nominations (no blanket primary)Rank and file partisans select conv. delegatesGreater role of policy in (national) campaigns
Responsible Party ModelResponsible Party Model
APSA report also noted:
End one party rule that renders elections meaningless in much of nation
End electoral college that renders electionsmeaningless in much of nation
Decline of Competition, US Decline of Competition, US House 1898 - 2000House 1898 - 2000
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25P
ropo
rtio
n se
ats
won
wit
h le
ss th
an 5
% m
argi
n
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930 19
40
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Proportion of House seats won by 5% or less
Incumbent Victory Margins: Incumbent Victory Margins: 1898 - 20001898 - 2000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
GOPMargin
DemMargin
Representation and Representation and CompetitionCompetition
Jan. 2005 - Dec 2006, by type of district. (109th Cong)
Party Discipline w/o Competition
• High levels of cynicism about politics– 43% agree, ‘people have no say’ in 2004– 27% agreed ‘people have no say’ in 1960
– 56% agree ‘elected officials don’t care’ in 2004– 25% agreed officials don’t care in 1960
• Decline in turnout (?)
Are these trends related?Are these trends related?Parties are now much more cohesive:
• Soft money, fundraising post BCRA• Congressional floor voting discipline• Party leaders (in Govt.) more power• Activists dominate presidential nominations
Politics, media more partisan, more polarized
Electoral competition often meaningless (swing, safe seats)
Fewer partisans, engagement with politics down
Public Views of Elections & PartiesPublic Views of Elections & Parties
• Less than 1/3 support maintaining two party system
• Few think that elections make government pay attention
• Turnout stagnant (down in north) despite fewer barriers
Do Elections Matter?Do Elections Matter?
Trends in responses to NES q; Do elections make govt pay attn?
Do Elections Matter?Do Elections Matter?
Growing cynicism & low efficacy about elections
• Pre-dates 2000 election disaster
• Pre-dates recently lobbying scandal
• Unlikely to be affected by HAVA like reforms
Do Elections MatterHow honest vote counting (% very dishonest, 2004):
US 23%Venezuela 18%Taiwan 16%Mexico 13%Philippines 12%S Africa 8%Bulgaria 8%Slovakia 7%Chile 6%Russia 5%
PR, PO, JP, SW, SK, AU, GB
NE, CA, FN, NZ, NO lt 1%
What problem should election What problem should election reforms target?reforms target?
• “faith in elections”
• “public trust”
• “have elections express will of the people”
• engagement with representative democracy
• participation
• polarization w/o partisans, w/o competition
Make Elections Worth StealingMake Elections Worth Stealing
Assume the ‘perfect’ election under HAVA - type reforms
polling places, early voting, registration….
Assume just one candidate has a chance to win ….
Will HAVA reforms affect anything?
Make Elections Worth StealingMake Elections Worth Stealing
If you build it, they will come…
Electoral competition -> representation of ‘center’, median
Electoral competition -> alter composition of electorate
Electoral competition -> interest, learning, participation
Electoral competition -> accountability, change in govt.
Electoral competition -> over crowded polling locations,
more Florida 2000, cheating, etc.
Larger QuestionsLarger Questions
How much should government & elections represent those care the least about politics?
Will more competition make people upset?
How much does political apathy is due to thedysfunctional aspects of institutions?
What reforms?
Recommended