Republican Party Realignment

Party strength is a measure of the ability of a party to get people to vote for its candidates. The post-World War II shift in party strength was part of a massive shift in policy over time. Scholars saw Republican politicians increasingly excel at getting elected at the local level (Lublin 2006), to offices in the state (Hayes and McKee 2007), and federal governments (Black and Black 2002, 1992; Shafer and Johnston 2006). It is difficult to see how the Republican Party would have become the majority in Congress in 1994 without the increased voting strength in the South. This marked a dramatic shift in national policy. This increased Republican Party strength more than made up for the lost ground in the Northeast over the period of study. Moreover,

Party polarization is the division between the two major parties on most policy issues, with members of each party is unified around their party’s position with little crossover. The competing explanations for polarization are how congressional representatives are elected, lawmakers selecting a candidate for office and as congressional districts and states have become more homogeneous. Every 10 years, congressional district geographic boundaries are redrawn so that each district has roughly the same population. These districts are increasingly drawn to be safe for one political party or another so that the district has a clear majority of either republicans or Democrats. This process is known as gerrymandering. Most lawmakers are elected from

The First Party System that emerged between 1789 and 1808 is a model of existing American political parties. Throughout the late 1700s, American political leaders and their supporters began grouping themselves under the labels “Federalist” and “Democratic Republican.” The Federalist Party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, while the Democratic Republican Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Undoubtedly, domestic issues, foreign affairs, and economic factors were a relative importance to the development of the First Party System.

As a third party it had to do something more to gain enough votes towards success. In the presidential election of 1896, the Populists nominated William Jennings Bryan as the president, joining with the Democrats. However, it was their obsession with silver that prevented the Populists from expanding their political appeal, by building an urban-rural coalition. Their insistence on silver brought failure, because it prevented the voters from focusing on more important reforms, they were afraid that the silver coinage would lower their wages. In contrast, the Progressives started to influence all classes with their reforms. They improved politics by allowing all voters to participate and propose new laws through the referendum, urged the adoption of initiative, the recall that gave voters the possibility to remove offending judges or officials from their posts, and the direct election of the senators, who up to that time were chosen by state legislatures (17th Amendment). Their goals were not only idealistic but also

Political rivals could stop plans from moving forward because they disliked the writer of those plans. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The only enemy that the republic had to fear is the effects of political parties. It will prevent the government from achieving its goals and create disorder…”(Document 2). Alexander Hamilton wrote this document to criticize his opponents, however in this he also criticizes political parties. Also in the same letter he states, “...harmful to the principles of good government and dangerous to the union, peace and happiness of this country…” In that document he was talking about the head of the rival party. Political parties were also responsible for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when the political party with the most power gets to draw districts, so they group up as many of their parties members in one district as possible in order to get more votes. Political parties had negative effects on the

America entered into the Era of Good Feelings which was a time of one party rule and peace. Democratic Republicans ruled the national government and voters had to chose a candidate from this political party. Culturally America didn’t change as slavery still in the south, industry still in the north, and western lands are still unknown. However, Henry Clay’s American System created a compromise between all regions with Northern industry, Southern Slavery, and Western Farmers. Therefore, The Missouri compromise increased sectionalism and brought economic differences to each region of the United States.

Finally, it will be argued that the modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since 1856. The Democratic Party generally positions itself as centre-left in American politics and supports a modern American liberal platform, while the Republican Party generally positions itself as centre-right and supports a modern American conservative platform. (Nichols, 1967)

Government is an important aspect in today’s world, especially regarding the opposition of being either a republican, democrat, or falling somewhere in between. One may identify them self as being one or the other, but how does one come to the conclusion of being a republican instead of a democrat or vice versa? It all comes down to how a person defines government and different political parties.

The development of political parties helped to create a more divisive nation. Many saw this time and time again throughout the time of 1789 - 1800’s. For example, there were efforts to turn opinion against the Federalists in late 1791. This was when Philip Freneau began publishing the National Gazette. Then his work was published everywhere. The secretary of state

Political beliefs and party lines may be the most controversial topic across all of America. As the current Presidential debates and ensuing election draw near, most will make decisions, take sides, and debate across the supper table or in the local coffee shops. The American people will not be able to escape the debates since on most days some form of media is making their ideas and opinions known and open for discussion. Wendell Berry’s article, “Caught in the Middle,” is a select piece from his book Our Only World, which takes a look at his interpretation of politics in America as they currently stand. Controversial topics, such as abortion and homosexual marriages are discusses. He also points out differences between liberal and more conservative parties. Through these topics, he informs the reader of his opinions regarding problems in American politics; the equality of people governed and the divide amongst political parties.

In general, those who identified as Republican or Democrat or had leanings to one side or the other in the 2016 election voted for that party’s presidential candidate regardless of whether or not they actually liked that candidate in particular with very few exceptions. Some viewed this kind of extreme partisanship as new and as something that made the 2016 election even more unusual than the media was already claiming it to be. However, the election of 1800 also showed an extreme amount of partisanship, indeed probably the first of its like. In that election, every state that was solidly Federalist or solidly Democratic-Republican voted accordingly, with the few swing states deciding the election, though their votes were really decided sometimes months before the election due to the nature of the electoral system at the time; the congressional elections of the “swing states” during the election year were what really decided the states’ electoral votes since the methods of choosing electors for the electoral college from each state was controlled by each state’s congress. Similarly in the 2016 election, all of the solidly Republican states and all of the solidly Democratic states voted accordingly with only a few swing states deciding the election. The idea that partisanship can rule an election and make or break a candidate is certainly one that prevailed in the election of 1800 and

Over the last decade congressional polarization has increased at alarming rates causing Washington insiders and outsiders alike to worry about the future of American politics and democracy. While Democrats and Republicans on The Hill cannot agree on much, they both acknowledge that the increasing level of polarization in Washington is crippling the entire legislative branch, thereby undermining the greatest democracy in the world. Numerous public opinion polls, over the last few years, have shown that the vast majority of the American public, regardless of party affiliation, disapproves of, and feels unrepresented by, the extremely polarized legislature (Gallup, 2016). However, year after year, despite how many Americans become disgruntled

The Democratic-Republicans transform the political culture of America. They were also the beneficiaries of the first bloodless Revolution. this political culture was named Jeffersonian Democracy. (Schultz, 2013).

The change in correlation between 1968 and the 1980 primaries show how dramatically the parties had become ideologically sorted by that time. In 1964 there were likely conservatives and moderates who were turned off by Goldwater’s campaign and rhetoric, or persuaded by Lyndon Johnson’s campaign and his status as Kennedy’s successor. 1968 is likely an outlier due to George Wallace’s campaign, which while it might have been closer ideologically to some non-southern conservative voters then Nixon’s campaign, his predicted share based on ideology was weighed down by his lack of a campaign outside of the South and by distaste for his open racism. In 1972 moderates defecting to Nixon due to McGovern’s poor campaign likely also weighed down the

The polarization of the political system in America infects the decision making and voting of politicians and Americans. Logical political decision making of political officials and Americans have been clouded by ideological viewpoints which does not logically increase the United States well being (Wilson pg 7). The political powers lack the efficient clarity in order to expand the growth of society fundamentally. Each political party has its own regime and viewpoint of what is to be of the country we all dwell in. This fog in the vision of these parties withstands a fine judgement in the development of the United States as a whole. This strains the movement of the United States and misrepresents the problems that should be extinguished as