In the Huffington Post article “Why Partisan Voting Makes Accountability Impossible”, Todd Phillips analyzes how social groups and political ideology heightens the response we have toward the candidate that represents our political party. Phillips states that social groups will vote for a candidate because of their loyalty to the political party, and not because of their issue advocacy. This loyalty is emphasized due their attachment to their social group. During times of an election, politicians will have different policies and stances on issues that can be seen as being more liberal or more conservative. However, this does not deter partisans from voting for their a candidate, since their loyalty lies within their attachment to their political …show more content…
The social group we are in is determined from a young age and is based upon values we learned within the home. Although we are not born a Democrat or Republican, ideological values lean us toward a political party. In class, we discussed that period forces can also have an effect on young people, but not enough to have them change party lines. The identity we developed is derived from our social groups, since certain religions, racial groups, education level, and even our economic class is associated with different political parties. Poorer people and racial minorities tend to vote Democrat, and college non-educated whites are increasingly become more GOP (lecture). Social groups that see a candidate represent their party and their identity (racial,religious, or economic) makes them more likely to vote for the candidate if the group can relate to them. Democratic African American turnout for Barack Obama in the ‘08 and ‘12 election being high could have been due to this social group having a strong attachment to their candidate (lecture).
Once a person identifies with their political party, it is hard to break away from that due to social group attachment. Politicians use this to their advantage, and can be ideologically extreme without losing their follower base. John Sides, in his article “Presidential candidates are ideologically extreme. And they pretty much get away with it.”, discusses a study that presidential candidates are not “punished by their extremism”. Candidates during the time did not lose many votes compared to those who were moderate, and votes suffered due to fundamental conditions and not on
Chapter one is titled the Choreography of American Politics. The purpose of the chapter is to provide a description of how income inequality and political polarization evolved during the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. In this chapter they introduce a system they have called NOMINATE. They used NOMINATE to measure political polarization in the House and Senate. Each legislator gets a score on where they are on a liberal conservative spectrum.
The differentiators that account for the variation are the parties and Congress. Meinke then deduces from the information that the majority party in Congress exhibits a significant substantial number of members that advertise their partisan activity — “…majority party status—and possibly the strength of the party brand name—is associated with the choice.” (Meinke 860) Meinke also discovers that the stronger the partisan base (measured by same-party presidential vote), there is a more
Politics. What does it do to us and our views of people? In “Divided We Now Stand,” Susan Page, the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA today, explains just that. She spends the article giving readers studies and insights as to how people oppose simply because the party says to oppose, and she shows us how people feel about opposing parties and treat them as a result of partisan views. In this article, Page has many good points and strategies, but her argument could be improved.
One strength of a political party is that they are “essential institutions for the operation of the American government” (Barker, 2016, p. 1, para. 1). One of the functions of the political party is to be the middle person between citizens and “their elected government” (Barker, 2016, p. 4, para. 2) so that the people can feel as if their voices will be heard and the issues will be resolved. Although political parties should be for the people, one of the weaknesses is that “many believe that the major parties do not do an adequate job of
In the essay, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System” it is stated that political parties are “indispensable instruments of government” (pg. 174). It emphasizes that the parties should be “agencies of the electorate” because it needs the public 's support. In other words, “the party system that is needed must be democratic, responsible and effective” (pg. 176). An effective party will be able to present and carry out programs that they propose. However, if the cynicism of the public and the ineffectiveness of the party system continues to escalate, the nation may eventually witness the disintegration of the two major political parties.
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.
Voting Behavior: America’s Diverse Demographics Ashley Colagiacomi Palm Beach State College Abstract The most interesting question about elections is not who won the election, but why they were elected. One has to consider the source of the person voting, and what has made them who they are, which leads to their political values. One also has to analyze how voting patterns change over time, and due to what cultural reasons.
Courting Polarization: The Supreme Court’s Role in Increasing the Divide between the Parties Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its zenith, is the most popular amongst the American public. According to Real Clear Politics, Congress has an average disapproval rating of 78.8% and an average approval rating of 13.9% from March 2nd to April 7th, while President Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings for March 20th to April 11th were 42.8% and 52.5 % respectively. Though currently at 46%, the Court’s approval rating has recently been as high as 62% in August 2000 and June 2001 (Gallup).
Today’s political arena is so tremendous that few voters can fully understand it. Policies of jobs, foreign relations and gay marriage are great factors that forge party lines and get out the vote. However, when forced to choose, voters must make sense of their vote by using very limited information and tangles of misperceptions guided by politically biased newscasts . With so many factors beyond comprehension often voters are hindered due to a limited number of sources to receive unbiased information from (Lenz, 2012) .
(This topic will be explained in two parts – Partisanship and antipathy of the Democrats and the Republicans). 1. Even though American politicians have been characteristic of negatively rating their opponents, currently those negative ratings have more than doubled as compared to two decades ago. 2. Deeply negative ratings and the strong dislike of the Democrats and Republicans has risen to alarming levels with each side viewing the opponents’ policies as misguided leading to gridlocks in policy making processes.
These dimensions include: personal attributes of both party’s candidates, domestic policy, foreign policy, the comparative record of the two parties managing the government, and the groups involved as well as the group interest affecting them (“he represents the working man”). This dimension predicts voting decisions with 87% accuracy. Each of these feelings are shaped by our party identification, and our party supplies us with the cues to “properly” evaluate elements of politics through the lens of
Throughout American history, race has been an ongoing factor that finds itself in multiple dynamics of our electoral system. A paradox of recent American political history is that there has been a great deal of change in the expression of racial prejudice, while at the same time there may have been substantially less change in the amount of prejudice that still exists (Ward, 1985). Symbolic racism, now known as “Racial Resentment” is the new form of racism that is studied today. Sniderman (1991) suggest that blatant racism is now viewed as being socially undesirable, so people are now engaging in indirect acts that display the same racist views, but in a disguised fashion. In this literature review, I briefly discuss the causes, effects, measurements
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)
The author immediately appeals to the audience [who, if of legal age, are voters, and thus are especially relevant to the essay] within the first paragraph using reliable information and statistics that reflect the public view of Politicians so as to gain their attention for what they are about to say, and uses this information to relate to the audience in a captivating way. [247] The essay draws attention to how politicians often operate to gain public support for votes to get into a higher position of power, stating that “Instead of seeking to play an informing and educational role, politicians use polling, focus groups, psycho-demographic analysis of the electorate and sophisticated communication strategies to arouse an apathetic public and to manipulate public opinion to gain voter support.”
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I