CHAPTER 3

Characteristics of the American Party Characteristics of the American Party SystemSystem

The United States was the first nation to develop The United States was the first nation to develop modern political parties that aligned the electorate modern political parties that aligned the electorate around national issues and organized at the around national issues and organized at the national, regional, and local levels to nominate national, regional, and local levels to nominate candidates, contest elections, and organize candidates, contest elections, and organize governmentsgovernments The peculiar combination of certain The peculiar combination of certain

characteristics has made the American party characteristics has made the American party system distinctivesystem distinctive-- two-party competition with variationstwo-party competition with variations-- decentralized power structuresdecentralized power structures-- broadly based electoral supportbroadly based electoral support-- nonprogrammatic partiesnonprogrammatic parties-- quasi-public institutions with ambiguous membershipquasi-public institutions with ambiguous membership

Two-Party Competition with VariationsTwo-Party Competition with Variations

The phrase The phrase two-party competitiontwo-party competition masks some masks some of the variation in the extent and nature of of the variation in the extent and nature of interparty competition in the United Statesinterparty competition in the United StatesParty Competition at the National LevelParty Competition at the National Level presidential elections are highly competitive, presidential elections are highly competitive, with with Republican and Democratic Republican and Democratic candidates alternatingcandidates alternating

Table 3.1. Major-Party Dominance of Table 3.1. Major-Party Dominance of Presidential Voting, 1948-2004Presidential Voting, 1948-2004

Candidates for President Percentage of Popular Vote

Year Republican Democrat Republican Democrat Total

1948 Dewey Truman 45.1 49.6 94.7

1952 Eisenhower Stevenson 55.1 44.4 99.5

1956 Eisenhower Stevenson 57.4 42.0 99.4

1960 Nixon Kennedy 49.5 49.7 99.2

1964 Goldwater Johnson 38.5 61.1 99.6

1968 Nixon Humphrey 43.4 42.7 86.1

1972 Nixon McGovern 60.7 37.5 98.2

1976 Ford Carter 48.0 50.1 98.1

1980 Reagan Carter 50.7 41.0 91.7

1984 Reagan Mondale 58.8 40.6 99.4

1988 Bush Dukakis 53.4 45.6 99.0

1992 Bush Clinton 37.4 43.0 80.4

1996 Dole Clinton 40.7 49.2 89.9

2000 Bush Gore 47.9 48.4 96.3

2004 Bush Kerry 50.7 48.3 99.0

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000, p. 273; Federal Election Commission data.

Two-Party Competition with VariationsTwo-Party Competition with Variations

The phrase The phrase two-party competitiontwo-party competition masks some of masks some of the variation in the extent and nature of interparty the variation in the extent and nature of interparty competition in the United Statescompetition in the United StatesParty Competition at the National LevelParty Competition at the National Level presidential elections are highly competitive, with presidential elections are highly competitive, with

Republican and Democratic candidates alternatingRepublican and Democratic candidates alternating although the Democrats controlled Congress although the Democrats controlled Congress during during most of the post-World War II era, most of the post-World War II era, congressional, congressional, and particularly House elections and particularly House elections show a high level of show a high level of competition and two-party competition and two-party dominance dominance

Two-Party Competition with VariationsTwo-Party Competition with Variations

Party Competition at the State LevelParty Competition at the State Level In recent years, a majority of states can be In recent years, a majority of states can be considered competitive at the state level, when considered competitive at the state level, when

taking gubernatorial and state legislative taking gubernatorial and state legislative elections elections into considerationinto consideration States have become more competitive, as no States have become more competitive, as no states states can be classified as one-party can be classified as one-party Republican or Republican or Democratic in recent years, Democratic in recent years, whereas a majority of whereas a majority of states were either states were either one-party states or modified one-one-party states or modified one- party states party states in the 1960s and 1970sin the 1960s and 1970s

Figure 3.1. Interparty Competition in the Figure 3.1. Interparty Competition in the United States, 1962-1973 and 1999-2003United States, 1962-1973 and 1999-2003

Note: Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan, so it is not classified here.

Source: John F. Bibby and Thomas M. Holbrook, “Parties and Elections,” in Politics in the American States, eds. Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson, (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press 2004).

1962-1973

1999-2003

One-Party Democratic Modified One-Party Democratic

Two-Party Modified One-Party Republican

Two-Party Competition with VariationsTwo-Party Competition with Variations

Variation in Levels of Competition for Different Variation in Levels of Competition for Different OfficesOffices There is substantial evidence of a high level of There is substantial evidence of a high level of

interparty competition in most interparty competition in most statewide statewide elections elections (presidential, senatorial, and (presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races)gubernatorial races)

Figure 3.2. Interparty Competition for the Figure 3.2. Interparty Competition for the Presidency: Number of Times the Republican Presidency: Number of Times the Republican

Presidential Nominee has Carried the State, 1968-Presidential Nominee has Carried the State, 1968-20042004

Times presidential nominee carried state

8-10 (21) 5-7 (19)

3-4 (6) 0-2 (5)

Table 3.2. Party Change in Control of Table 3.2. Party Change in Control of Governorships, 1950-2000Governorships, 1950-2000

Decade Number of Gubernatorial Elections

Percent of Elections with a Party Changea

1950–1959 174 23.6 (41)1960–1969 156 35.3 (55)1970–1979 144 38.9 (56)1980–1989 122 35.2 (43)1990–1998 135 35.6 (48)2000 11 9.1 (1)

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of party changes

Source: Adapted from Larry Sabato, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1983), pp. 120-121; the 1980-2000 data are derived from appropriate volumes of the Statistical Abstract of the United States; National Journal, November 11, 2000, p. 3622. a An election with a party change is defined as any election in which control of the governorship shifts from one party to another

Two-Party Competition with VariationsTwo-Party Competition with VariationsVariation in Levels of Competition for Different OfficesVariation in Levels of Competition for Different Offices There is substantial evidence of a high level of There is substantial evidence of a high level of interparty competition in most statewide electionsinterparty competition in most statewide elections (presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races)(presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races) Interparty competition has been relatively rare in Interparty competition has been relatively rare in

elections to the House of Representativeselections to the House of Representatives-- Since 2000 more than 75% of seats were landslide wins Since 2000 more than 75% of seats were landslide wins -- Usually more than 90% of incumbents win reelectionUsually more than 90% of incumbents win reelection

The absence of meaningful two-party competition is The absence of meaningful two-party competition is also common in many state legislative electionsalso common in many state legislative elections

Decentralized Power StructuresDecentralized Power Structures

Except for a few isolated urban machines, there is Except for a few isolated urban machines, there is almost a total absence of hierarchical relationships almost a total absence of hierarchical relationships within American partieswithin American partiesThe Impact of the ConstitutionThe Impact of the Constitution The separation of powers, or the creation of a The separation of powers, or the creation of a national government composed of three branches, national government composed of three branches,

allows parties to target different races allows parties to target different races separately, separately, thus disencouraging party unitythus disencouraging party unity The federal structure of government has forced The federal structure of government has forced parties to develop a decentralized power structureparties to develop a decentralized power structure

Decentralized Power StructuresDecentralized Power Structures

The Impact of Nomination and Campaign The Impact of Nomination and Campaign PracticesPractices Elected officials gain nomination and election Elected officials gain nomination and election

primarily through reliance on highly primarily through reliance on highly personalized personalized campaign organizationscampaign organizationsSome Countertrends: Nationalizing InfluencesSome Countertrends: Nationalizing Influences1.1. The impact of national forces on state voting The impact of national forces on state voting

patternspatterns2.2. The expanded role played by national party The expanded role played by national party

organizationsorganizations3.3. The growth of national “presidential parties”The growth of national “presidential parties”

Broadly Based Electoral SupportBroadly Based Electoral Support

In the United States party allegiances to not In the United States party allegiances to not reflect reflect social and economic cleavagessocial and economic cleavages Instead partisan loyalties cut across social and Instead partisan loyalties cut across social and

economic divisions, resulting in parties that economic divisions, resulting in parties that are are broadly based coalitions of diverse and broadly based coalitions of diverse and even even conflicting elementsconflicting elements Because of this diversity, parties have Because of this diversity, parties have difficulties difficulties maintaining unity among their maintaining unity among their elected officialselected officials However, coalition-type parties do provide a However, coalition-type parties do provide a means means of reconciling and compromising of reconciling and compromising conflicts within conflicts within societysociety

Nonprogrammatic PartiesNonprogrammatic PartiesProgrammatic parties have policy positions that “are Programmatic parties have policy positions that “are part of a settled long-range program to which the part of a settled long-range program to which the party is dedicated in definite enough terms to mark party is dedicated in definite enough terms to mark it off prom rival parties” (Leon D. Epstein)it off prom rival parties” (Leon D. Epstein) American parties’ policy positions tend to be more American parties’ policy positions tend to be more

ad hoc in character and adopted to meet short-ad hoc in character and adopted to meet short-term term problems or electoral circumstancesproblems or electoral circumstances As a consequence, a substantial policy diversity As a consequence, a substantial policy diversity exists exists withinwithin each party each party The percentiles in table 3.3. shows displays The percentiles in table 3.3. shows displays Democratic liberalism scores and Republican Democratic liberalism scores and Republican conservatism scores in relation to party colleaguesconservatism scores in relation to party colleagues

Table 3.3. Ideological Diversity within the Republican and Democratic Table 3.3. Ideological Diversity within the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S. Senate, 109Parties in the U.S. Senate, 109thth Congress, 1 Congress, 1stst Session, 2005 Session, 2005

Liberal Democrats Percentile Mainstream Democrats Percentile Moderate Democrats Percentile

Kennedy, Edward (Mass.) 96.7 Wyden, Ron (Ore.) 80.8 Nelson, Bill (Fla.) 66.2

Reed, Jack (R.I.) 95.2 Biden, Joseph (Del.) 80.2 Bingaman, Jeff (N.M.) 66

Boxer, Barbara (Calif.) 94.3 Clinton, Hillary Rodham (N.Y.) 79.8 Lieberman, Joe (Conn.) 65.7

Sarbanes, Paul (Md.) 91 Rockefeller IV, Jay (W.Va.) 79.8 Byrd, Robert (W.Va.) 65.5

Lautenberg, Frank (N.J.) 89.3 Dodd, Christopher (Conn.) 79.7 Baucus, Max (Mont.) 60.7

Harkin, Tom (Iowa) 89.2 Akaka, Daniel (Hawaii) 78.8 Salazar, Ken (Colo.) 60.2

Durbin, Richard (Ill.) 86.8 Kohl, Herb (Wis.) 78.8 Pryor, Mark (Ark.) 59.8

Kerry, John (Mass.) 86.7 Reid, Harry (Nev.) 78.2 Conrad, Kent (N.D.) 59.7

Stabenow, Debbie (Mich.) 86.3 Schumer, Charles (N.Y.) 77.8 Landrieu, Mary (La.) 58.3

Mikulski, Barbara (Md.) 85.8 Jeffords, James (Vt.) 77.7 Nelson, Ben (Neb.) 49.7

Conservative Republicans Percentile Mainstream Republicans Percentile Moderate Republicans Percentile

Sessions, Jeff (Ala.) 90.8 Enzi, Michael (Wyo.) 78.7 McCain, John (Ariz.) 59.2

Allard, Wayne (Colo.) 90.8 DeMint, Jim (S.C.) 78.3 Gregg, Judd (N.H.) 58.5

Coburn, Tom (Okla.) 90.8 Bond, Christopher (Mo.) 77.3 DeWine, Mike (Ohio) 55.5

Bunning, Jim (Ky.) 89.2 Crapo, Mike (Idaho) 75.5 Voinovich, George (Ohio) 55.3

Lott, Trent (Miss.) 88 Grassley, Charles (Iowa) 75.3 Lugar, Richard (Ind.) 52.8

Isakson, Johnny (Ga.) 87 Burr, Richard (N.C.) 73.5 Sununu, John (N.H.) 52.8

Chambliss, Saxby (Ga.) 86.7 Alexander, Lamar (Tenn.) 73.3 Smith, Gordon (Ore.) 50.2

Allen, George (Va.) 85.8 Burns, Conrad (Mont.) 73 Snowe, Olympia (Maine) 47.3

McConnell, Mitch (Ky.) 84.8 Thune, John (S.D.) 71.3 Specter, Arlen (Pa.) 46.8

Bennett, Robert (Utah) 84.8 Stevens, Ted (Alaska) 71 Collins, Susan (Maine) 46.7

Source: “2005 Vote Ratings—Senate Ratings,” National Journal (February 25, 2006), pp. 48-51.

A score of 90 means that a Senator is more liberal/conservative than 90% of the total Senate membership

Nonprogrammatic PartiesNonprogrammatic Parties Another sign of the lack of party unity is the Another sign of the lack of party unity is the lack of lack of party loyalty to implement party loyalty to implement presidential government presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)policies (Table 3.4.)

Table 3.4. Support for President’s Position on Roll Table 3.4. Support for President’s Position on Roll Call Votes by Members of the President’s Party in Call Votes by Members of the President’s Party in

Congress, 1954-2005Congress, 1954-2005      Average Percent of Members of President’s

Party Supporting His Position

Years President Party Representatives Senators

2001-2005 Bush Republican 84 91

1993–2000 Clinton Democrat 76 86

1989–1992 Bush Republican 69 77

1981–1988 Reagan Republican 68 79

1977–1980 Carter Democrat 69 69

1974–1976 Ford Republican 72 65

1969–1974 Nixon Republican 73 63

1964–1968 Johnson Democrat 71 81

1961–1963 Kennedy Democrat 75 83

1954–1960 Eisenhower Republican 80 68

Source: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress, 1999-2000 (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2000), pp. 198-199; Congressional Quarterly Weekly.

Nonprogrammatic PartiesNonprogrammatic Parties Another sign of the lack of party unity is the Another sign of the lack of party unity is the

lack of party loyalty to implement presidential lack of party loyalty to implement presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)government policies (Table 3.4.)

Yet another way of the lack of party unity is Yet another way of the lack of party unity is the frequency with which Senators vote in the frequency with which Senators vote in

opposition of the position of a president from opposition of the position of a president from the the same party (Table 3.5.)same party (Table 3.5.)

Table 3.5. Republican Senators Voting Most Table 3.5. Republican Senators Voting Most Frequently in Opposition to the President’s Frequently in Opposition to the President’s

Position on Senate Roll Calls, and Democratic Position on Senate Roll Calls, and Democratic Senators Most Frequently Voting in Support of the Senators Most Frequently Voting in Support of the

President, 2005President, 2005Republicans

Percent of Votes Opposed Democrats

Percent of Votes in Support

Chafee (R.I.) 44 Nelson (Neb.) 76

Collins (Maine) 38 Landrieu (La.) 64

Snowe (Maine) 33 Pryor (Ark.) 58

DeWine (Ohio) 24 Lincoln (Ark.) 50

McCain (Ariz.) 23 Salazar (Colo.) 49

Smith (Ore.) 21 Conrad (N.D.) 48

Sununu (N.H.) 19 Nelson (Fla.) 47

Gregg (N.H.) 18 Lieberman 46

Craig (Idaho) 18 Johnson (S.D.) 46

Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly, Jan. 6, 2006, p. 85.

Nonprogrammatic PartiesNonprogrammatic Parties Another sign of the lack of party unity is the Another sign of the lack of party unity is the

lack of party loyalty to implement presidential lack of party loyalty to implement presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)government policies (Table 3.4.)

Yet another way of the lack of party unity is Yet another way of the lack of party unity is the frequency with which Senators vote in the frequency with which Senators vote in

opposition of the position of a president from the opposition of the position of a president from the same party (Table 3.5.)same party (Table 3.5.)

Given the lack of party unity in Congress, it is Given the lack of party unity in Congress, it is frequently necessary to form cross-party frequently necessary to form cross-party

alliances to alliances to pass legislationpass legislation However, shifts in party control of the national However, shifts in party control of the national

government have resulted in major changes in government have resulted in major changes in public policy, due to differences in party public policy, due to differences in party

platformsplatforms

Quasi-Public Institutions with Ambiguous Quasi-Public Institutions with Ambiguous MembershipMembership

In most democracies, political parties are In most democracies, political parties are considered considered private organizations which make private organizations which make and enforce their and enforce their own rules concerning its own rules concerning its activitiesactivities By contrast, American parties are quasi-public By contrast, American parties are quasi-public

institutions that are heavily regulated by state institutions that are heavily regulated by state laws laws The extensive regulation of parties in such The extensive regulation of parties in such matters matters as membership, organization, as membership, organization, leadership selection, leadership selection, nominations, and nominations, and campaihn finance means that campaihn finance means that parties are not free parties are not free to run their own internal affairs to run their own internal affairs as they see fitas they see fit