Voting and Participating: Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections Chapter 3

Voting and Participating: Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections

Chapter 3

Political Parties: What they do

Electing their members to public office Representing the groups that make up the

party’s coalition Organizing the party’s members and the

government so that the policy preferences of the party’s members become public policy

Components of the Political Party Party organization

People who hold positions in the party structure Example: State Chairpersons

Party in the electorate People who identify with the party Example: citizen who identifies with a political party

Party in government People who hold public office under the party label Example: Governor

Party Organization

Formal Party Organization

Established in state law Temporary Organization

Precinct conventions County or state senatorial district conventions State convention

Certifies results of party’s primary Drafts and adopts the party’s platform Selects state party executive committee, party chair and

vice chair


Permanent Organization Precinct Chair

Elected in primary Information to party members Getting party members to vote Serving on county executive committee


County Chair Elected in primary Conduct party’s primary election Arranging for the party’s county convention Raising funds for the county organization Campaigning for party candidates Promoting precinct organization efforts


State executive committee 62 members – one man, one woman from each of

the state’s senatorial district. Democrats have additional members from state officers and constituent groups–92 total members.

State chair and vice chair Certify party’s candidates for general election Conduct the state convention Promoting party candidates and issue positions

Functional Organization

Party unity Democratic Party

Factions: ideological Issues Liberals vs. conservatives

Republican Party Factions: party function Win elections or represent party members Pragmatists vs. Ideologues

Functional Organization

Party Effectiveness State level

Complexity of the party’s organization Accessible headquarters Division of labor Party budget Professional leadership

Capacity to perform party-building activities Institutional support—fundraising, mobilization, polls, newsletter Candidate-centered activities—contributions, recruitment, endorsements

County level Campaigning

Precinct level Campaigning

Texas Political Party Chairs: County and Precinct

Democrats Republicans

Gender

Male 57 67

Female 43 33

Race/Ethnicity

Anglo 78 91

African American 11 3

Hispanic 10 4

Age

Under 40 10 13

40-49 17 21

50-59 26 22

Over 60 47 44

Education

College Degree 60 65

Family Income

$75 or more 34 48

Issues, Ideology, Religion of Texas County and Precinct

ChairsDemocrats Republicans

Issues (% Agreeing)

Choice in abortion 86 31

Aid to minorities 85 35

Reduce government spending

10 75

Ideological Identification

Very Liberal 21 0

Somewhat Liberal 39 2

Moderate 25 7

Somewhat Conservative 10 38

Very Conservative 3 53

Mean Ideological Identity 2.4 4.4

Religion

Protestant 65 81

Catholic 22 14

Closeness to Religious Right

Close and Very Close 13 47

Precinct Convention Simulation Registration of Participants—Presidential Preference Selection of Convention Officers Allocation of Delegates to County/State Senatorial Convention

2006 Gubernatorial Election Results—Precinct 399 Rick Perry 751 votes Chris Bell 973 votes

Selection of Delegates Resolutions

TAKS High School Curriculum

Party in the Electorate

No registration of party members Party identification is a psychological

attachment formed early and is quite stable In politics, as of today, do you consider

yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent? (Asked of independents: As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?)


Conservative Democrats West of line connecting Ft. Worth, San Antonio,

and Laredo Small, rural counties where most people were

ranchers and farmers Supporters of traditional social values, suspicious

of change, and almost entirely Anglo In urban areas, upper income and well educated.

Less heavily populated, slower growing, fewer minorities


Liberal Democrats 1940s-1950s, east of line connecting Ft. Worth,

San Antonio, Laredo. 1960s-1970s, better in southwestern Texas Counties were heavily populated, urbanized, and

growing rapidly in population Counties also contained poorer and less educated

voters.


Republicans Traditional areas of support were Panhandle

Texas and German Hill Country 1960s-1970s, party expanded support in

suburban areas—Midland and Ector counties; Gregg, Rusk, Smith counties; Brazos, Washington, and Austin counties; Houston metro area and Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex

Highly educated and high-income occupations. Younger and recent residents.


Trends in Party Attachments More Republicans

1952, fewer than 10 percent 2007, 32 percent

Fewer Democrats 1952, 66 percent 2007, 28 percent

More Independents 1952, 25 percent 2007, 39 percent

Party in the Electorate: Contemporary Coalitions Democrats

Women African Americans Hispanics Liberals and populists

Republicans Anglos Conservatives and libertarians Christian Right Males

Party Identification and Ideology2008

9 12 9

21

6458

88

49

60 66 45

3441

9

42

28 2534

2 1 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

StrongDemocrat

Weak Democrat DemocraticLeaning

Independent

Independent RepublicanLeaning

Independent

WeakRepublican

StrongRepublican

Party Identification

Percent

Conservative Moderate Liberal

Parties and Political Change

Realignment Durable alteration in the balance of party

identifiers Changes in electoral behavior Changes in the parties’ coalitions

Dealignment Decline in the central position of political parties in

voters’ orientations and behaviors

Case for Realignment

Durable shifts in party identification Mobilization

New voters who adopt party affiliation Immigrants who have party affiliation

Conversion Shift in partisanship from one party to the other party Independents choose a party affiliation

New Residents

Large influx of new residents since the 1970s

Party identification by years of residence in 1984

050

100

1stQtr

3rdQtr

32

26

20

37 37

32

26

32

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10 or few er years Over 10 years, notlifetime

Lifetime resident

Residence in Texas

Perc

enta

ge

Republican

Independent

Democrat

New Residents

New residents

by party

identification, 1987

35 35

23

42

37 36

24

28

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 or fewer years Over 10 years, notlifetime

Lifetime resident

Residence in Texas

Perc

enta

ge Republican

Independent

Democrat

New Residents – 1980s Immigrants

32

38

2830

32

28

32

22

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

All Texans 1980s Immigrants Lifelong Texans

Time of Residence

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Republican

Independent

Democrat

New Voters

Party identification by Age, 1986

Among youngest category, nearly 4 of

10 Texans were Republicans

Among other categories, only 1

of 4 Texans were Republicans

3727 23 21

3642

363127 31

4148

0102030405060

18-29 30-44 45-61 62+

Age

Perce

ntage

Republican

Independent

Democrat

Party Switchers

In 1986, 32 percent of Democratic Party Identifiers had abandoned their party identification

In 1986, 21 percent of Republican Party identifiers had abandoned their party identification

Switchers just as likely to choose the other party as become independents

Party Switchers - Ideology

Conservative Democrats most likely to switch – 37 percent left the Democratic Party (23 percent became Republicans; 14 percent became independents)

Moderate Democrats next most likely switchers – 35 percent left the Democratic Party (20 percent became independents; 15 percent became Republicans)

Party Switchers – Income levels High income Democrats most likely to switch

– 48 percent abandoned the Democratic Party (28 percent became Republicans; 21 percent became independents)

Moderate income Democrats next most likely to switch – 26 percent abandoned the Democratic Party (16 percent became independents; 10 percent became Republicans)

Party Switchers - Ethnicity

Anglo Democrats most likely to abandon the Democratic Party – 43 percent switched (23 percent became Republicans; 20 percent became independents)

African-American Democrats least likely to switch – 6 percent abandoned the Democratic Party (3 percent became independents; 3 percent became Republicans)

Recent Changes

Case for Realignment

Parties become more distinct ideologically Greatest differences on increased spending for poor and

health Democrats increase taxes; Republicans cut programs

Party affiliations are the basis for the vote choice 1986-1994, Republican gubernatorial candidates received

between 86% and 93% of strong Republicans’ votes; Democratic candidate between 88% and 92% of strong Democrats’ votes.

2006, Perry received 73 percent of Republican vote 2006, Bell received 67 percent of Democratic vote

Case for RealignmentParty Identification in Texas 1982-1990

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Year

Percentage

Democrat 44 38 35 34 35 33 34 34 32

Independent 36 36 34 30 33 38 36 30 31

Republican 18 22 26 29 26 29 29 34 31

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Case for RealignmentParty Identification in Texas 1991-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Per

cent

age

Democrat 31 27 27 28 29 30 30 25 26 24 28 24 27 26 29 28

Independent 31 31 29 28 27 25 26 25 26 26 33 35 32 33 32 39

Republican 28 28 31 31 29 31 31 32 34 36 38 41 42 42 39 33

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Case for Dealignment

An increase in independents 1952, 25 percent were independents 2007, 39 percent were independents

More split-ticket voting

Candidates and issues are more important than parties in voters’ choices Elections of 1978 through 1990 especially

Party in Government: Executive Constitution establishes independent

elections of executive officials Candidates for executive offices run

independent campaigns Once in office, competition among executives

whether members of same party or different parties

Party in Government: Legislature History of bipartisanship Republican minority until 2002 Democratic Party organization

Democratic caucus in House in 1981; all Democrats by 1987

Leadership and Democratic caucus worked together from 1993-2003

Senate Democratic caucus more active since 1999.

Party in Government: Legislature Republican Party organization

No organization prior to 1989. Caucus organized in 1989 Caucus became more important as Republican

membership in House passed one-third threshold Partisan organizations still less important

than legislative leaders

Party in Government: Judiciary Difference between Republican judges and

Democratic judges Civil cases, Republican judges favor defendants

and Democratic judges favor plaintiffs Criminal cases, Republican judges favor

prosecution, and Democratic judges favor defendants

Governors appoint party members to fill vacancies

Party in Government: Judiciary

Texas Supreme Court Win Rates, 1996-2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage

Plantiff Win Rate 24 22 27 31 41 27 19 12 21 15 14

Defendant Win Rate 71 69 60 57 52 68 79 82 76 82 86

1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006-

Political Parties and Democracy Strong and cohesive political parties support

majoritarian democracy Hierarchically structured Coherent party platform Control candidate nominations Require candidates to support the party’s platform Mobilize their members to vote Organize the government to turn the party’s

platform into public policy

Political Parties and Democracy Weak and decentralized parties promote

pluralist democracy Parties are coalitions of interests Represent a fairly narrow spectrum in their

membership Demand little of party members Influence the operation of government rather than

controlling government

Goals of Interest Groups

Primary goals Public policy TMRA II - 2009

Helmet Law Failure to Yield Equal Access Sobriety Checkpoints

Secondary Goals Changing the policy

process inputs Review of decisions Decentralize authority

Changing Social Values Targets society Change perceptions

Types of Interest Groups

Business and Trade Associations Texas Association of Business Texas Gaming Association Texas Automobile Dealers Association

Professional Associations Texas Trial Lawyers Association Texas Medical Association

Types of Interest Groups

Labor Groups Communication Workers of America (CWA) American Federation of State, County, Municipal

Employees (AFSCME) Racial and Ethnic Groups

African Americans–NAACP Hispanics–LULAC, MALDEF

Public Interest Groups Consumers Union

Interest Group Resources

Money Information, expertise, skills Group’s members

Number Cohesiveness

Reputation of the Group

Political Activities of Groups

Lobbying Direct lobbying

Lobbyists 2007, 1,629 registered lobbyists Characteristics of lobbyists Principal job – access and providing information Targets

Indirect or grassroots lobbying Members contact policymakers Public relations campaigns


Electioneering Political Action

Committees (PACs) 2006, 1.132 general

purpose PACs spent $99.1 million

Sources of PAC money PAC contributions

Incumbents Open-seat contests challengers

PAC Spending by Sector, 2006

0%

5%

58%37%Business

Ideological

Labor

Unknown

PAC Spending, 1996 - 2006

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

Millions

PAC Spending

PAC Spending $43,082,54 $51,543,82 $85,320,22 $99,167,64

1996 1998 2002 2006


Litigation – use of the judicial system to advance the group’s goals

Increased since the 1970s and the “new judicial federalism”

Can be used to effect change, to prevent change, or to slow change

expensive

Interest Groups and Democracy Business enjoys the best representation in Texas Some interests have no representation Groups do not compete on many issues Policymaking in administrative agencies is becoming

more contentious and competitive Iron triangles Issue networks

Interest Groups and Democracy When majority of interest groups agree, their side

usually wins When interest groups oppose political leaders, the

interest groups’ influence decreases greatly Which is it: Pluralism or Elitism? Perspective is

important. Processes and activities vs. results or outcomes

Political Participation

Definition: Any actions, by individuals or groups, to influence or support government and its policies

Forms of Political Participation Conventional Participation

Routine, legitimate institutions provided by government and either supports government or attempts to influence public policy

Unconventional Participation Unusual, possibly illegal, forms of participation to

challenge government or to oppose public policy

Attitudes and Forms of Political Participation Internal Political Efficacy

Feeling that person has the skills necessary to influence government

Political Trust Feeling that public officials do the “right thing”

most of the time – decisions are made in the public interest and public officials are honest and trustworthy

Attitudes and Forms of Political Participation High Political Efficacy and High Political Trust

Conventional Participation to influence policies High Political Efficacy and Low Political Trust

Unconventional Participation Low Political Efficacy and High Political Trust

Conventional Participation to show support Low Political Efficacy and Low Political Trust

Apathetic

Political Efficacy

High Low

ConventionalInfluencing

ConventionalSupporting

Unconventional

Apathy

High

Political Trust

Low

Elections in Texas

Primary Elections Intraparty contests to determine the party’s

nominees for public offices Held on the first Tuesday in March Legally a closed primary but operates like an

open primary Majority vote necessary to win Ballot access through petition or filing fee Election costs funded by parties and public

monies

Elections in Texas

General Elections Interparty contests to determine which candidates

will hold public office Held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in

November in even numbered years Plurality vote necessary to win Ballot access through nomination by a party or

petitions Election costs funded by public monies

Elections in Texas

Special Elections Partisan and non-partisan contests to fill vacancies in

state legislative and congressional offices, approve bond proposals, and approve constitutional amendments

Held on one of two uniform dates: May–2nd Saturday or November–First Tuesday after First Monday

Majority vote necessary to win Ballot access through petitions or filing fees Election costs funded by public monies

Political Campaigns in Texas

Money High cost of Texas campaigns

Perry raised 24 million in 2006 47 percent in contributions of $25,000 or more 9 percent in contributions under $100

Sources of campaign contributions Individuals PACs Candidate-financed

Few limitations on campaign contributions Treasurer appointed Limits on cash contributions–$100 Reporting required–Texas Ethics Commission


Media Television is the dominant medium Campaign effects

Changed the way candidates appeal to voters Spawned a new industry – campaign consultants


Marketing Opinion Polling

Benchmark poll Tracking polls Focus groups

Media Services Commercial advertisements

Promotional spots Attack spots

News Coverage

Voter Turnout

Costs of Voting Registration is remaining cost

Registration 30 days prior to election required Motor-voter registration system reduces cost

Register when getting driver’s license Early voting reduces cost

Voting allowed at permanent and temporary sites throughout county 17 days prior to election and ending 4 days prior to election

Voter Turnout

Benefits of Voting Instrumental—person’s vote determines election

outcome Expressive – person finds his or her vote meaningful

Symbolic – expresses a general commitment to a group Instrumental – expresses concern about the election and

its outcome Factors making the vote meaningful

Social Connectedness Political Connectedness

Voter Turnout: Historical Results

1890s – 75 percent voted 1910 – 24 percent voted 1920s - declining turnout into low teens 1950s and 1960s – increasing turnout

reaching 35 percent in 1970 1970s – decline to 20 percent range 1980s and 1990s – increase to 30 percent

range

Vote Choice

Party Identification Vote determined by party identification—straight-ticket

voting Issues

Vote determined by candidates’ positions on issues important to the voter

Candidate Characteristics Vote determined by candidates’ personal characteristics—

most important are competence, integrity, reliability

Vote Choice

Prospective VotingVoting based on what candidates promise to do if elected

Retrospective VotingVoting based on candidate’s past performance

Texas Gubernatorial Elections

1982 – Clements vs. White 1986 – White vs. Clements 1994 – Richards vs. Bush 2002 – Perry vs. Sanchez 2006 – Perry vs. Bell, Strayhorn, Friedman

1982 Gubernatorial Election

Partisan advantage to Democrats Economic conditions favored Democrats Coordinated Democratic campaign White – 83 percent Democrats Clements – 90 percent Republicans Party identification most important



Partisan advantage to Democrats – barely Poor economic conditions, education reforms,

tax increases Clements – Republicans, high income, Anglos,

rural voters White – Democrats, African Americans,

Hispanics, low income Candidates most important with some issue

content



Partisan advantage to neither party Popular governor presiding over good

economic times Bush – Republicans, young voters, high

income, Anglos, rural voters, independents Richards – Democrats, African Americans,

Hispanics, low income, liberals Issues important to many voters


Blue=Bush (R)Red=Richards (D)


Republican Party advantage Divisive Democratic Primary Sanchez

78 percent Democrats 83 percent African Americans 68 percent liberals 65 percent Hispanics


Perry 92 percent Republicans 49 percent independents Majority of Anglos; rural, urban, suburban

dwellers; 30 years old and older Incomes over $35,000 annually

Negative campaigns


Blue=Perry (R)Red=Sanchez (D)


Republican Party advantage Five Candidates

Republican incumbent Rick Perry Democrat Chris Bell Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn Independent Kinky Friedman Libertarian James Werner


Perry’s Support 73 percent of Republicans 64 percent of Conservatives 44 percent of Anglos Plurality of incomes over $30,000 Plurality of all age categories Plurality of suburban and rural residents


Bell’s Support 67 percent of Democrats 54 percent of liberals 63 percent of African Americans 41 percent of Hispanics Plurality incomes less than $30,000 Plurality of urban residents


Blue=Perrry (R)Red=Bell (D)Green=Strayhorn (I)


What if Strayhorn and Friedman had not run? Perry would have won 47 percent

About equally split between Strayhorn and Friedman Bell would have won 42 percent

Strayhorn hurt Bell more than Friedman did Ten percent would not have voted

Join the Debate: Voting Systems Electronic voting systems vs. paper ballots

Arguments for electronic voting Secret ballots possible for disabled Eliminate some problems of other systems Easy to use and allow rapid tabulation

Arguments against electronic voting No paper trail for recounts Voting is not secure Systems prone to viruses and other computer glitches

Texas Elections and Democracy

Limitations on voting Voting Procedures

Documents

Voting and Participating: Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Elections Chapter 3