Analysis Of Alan Abramowitz 's ' Argument On Table 1 And 2

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

The United States has maintained its two party system for some time, but the major parties have not always been so clearly separated. In the early and mid-twentieth century, polarization was actually declining, as there was much ideological overlap between the members of the two parties (Kuo). Many people, such as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, rested in the ideological middle. Additionally, each party represented a coalition of diverse interests. At

The two-party system needs to be changed or completely abolished, because it offers limited ideas and opinions to run the country. The two parties have their own perspectives on issues such as gun control or abortion; Craig Goodman of the University of Houston claims he“doesn’t think it’s very democratic. Why should you exclude someone because they are a small number, and they don’t get to express themselves?” (Cargo 1). The two-party does not allow the middle ground or smaller parties to really have a say (Mathias 4).  Most voters only know the leading independent and the two party nominees. Kate Cargo describes “the two-party system leaves voter with low-quality ideas and frankly, low-quality candidates” (Cargo 1) while the third party candidate could have a great compromise on a hot issue, it will never see the light of day. While the two-party system does allow people to have easy access to the opinions of the parties on these issues, it does not make up for the limited options we have. As a country we need to have as many options as possible even if they are extreme. Accessibility is important, but it should never limit our options.

In the book, Culture War?, by Morris Fiorina, the myth of a polarized America is exposed. Fiorina covers issues such as why Americans believe that America is polarized, that Red and Blue State people aren’t as different as they are made out to be, and that the United States is not polarized along traditional cleavage lines. This book even covers perspectives on abortion, homosexuality, and whether or not electoral cleavages have shifted. A large point of Fiorina’s is his take on the 2004 election. He ends the book with, how did our great nation get to this position of proclaimed polarization, and how do we improve from here?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Polarization is defined as the “division into two opposites”. (Merriam-Webster) Political Polarization refers to the perceived division of ideologies espoused between the two major political parties in the United States. The topic of political polarization is one frequently referenced in the media and in political discussions. Does political polarization actually exist or is it a myth? In this paper, this question will be analyzed and examined and a conclusion will be reached.

Susan Page offers powerful support in the form of ethological appeal, logical appeal, and the use of imagery to convey readers the separation of political parties in her article, Divided We Now Stand. The rhetorical strategies Page uses help achieve her purpose of demonstrating the American people are to blame for the divided line between our citizens. Page chose these detailed and affirmative strategies to show American citizens that blaming the government for the country’s separation in wrong.

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

The polarization of the political parties is a reflection of a country, not simply a government divided, but the country’s populous in growing further apart. Alan Abramowitz indicates the polarization of the Democrats and Republicans causes them to be on opposing sides on almost all issues and Washington reflects the growing division within Americans (714). Thus the major problem with Polarization and gridlock is not the simply the inability to pass the legislation when gridlock occurs but what it does to the morale of American citizens. D.J. Flynn and Laurel Harbridge completed two surveys in order to study how partisan congress affects public opinion. A result from the study indicated most people will accept legislation in favor of the opposing party than they will gridlock (885) and while more research is needed the result of their survey is gridlock does cause a decrease in the populist confidence in Congress (Flynn, Harbridge 890). It is clear something needs to be done to improve the mindset of the American people. One of the best ways to improve the mindset of the American populace is for them to become more educated. When the country was first established, people were not privy to every action the congress was taking as it happened, and therefore the quibbles within congress were not in the forefront of people’s minds. Even Melnick illuminated the fact that the populist is now bombarded with opinions about what is happing in Washington. He indicated when the constitutional convention took place the meeting was behind closed doors miles from constituents allowing them

Historically the United States has seen times of large political polarization, this is analyzed in "Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election." In which Julia Azari and Marc Hetherington analyze the striking similarities of the elections and polarization of

Thomas Mann of Brookings Institutions writes that, “in addition to the decline in competition, American politics today is characterized by a growing ideological polarization between the two major parties”. In addition to his opinion, political data has shown that political polarization is increasing and is more readily seen in the way the American government functions in the political sphere. In an article by the University of Rochester’s Campus Times they wrote “In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties wrote a report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report said that party leadership in Congress was far too lenient when it came to dissent within the party ranks, allowing members’ difference in positions to not be as important as they should. They said that in order for there to be a healthier democracy in the US, the country needed cohesive, top-down parties with clear agendas that can be carried out when in the majority. It also needed a cohesive minority party to criticize the majority party and act as an alternative.” While both the Campus Times and Thomas Mann suggest that polarization is somewhat necessary and is increasing, whether or not the necessity or increase is beneficial to American politics and government is debatable. In this paper, I argue that while polarization can be both unbeneficial and beneficial, for the most part is has proven to be unbeneficial for American politics and government.

There are many theories as to how or why political polarization was formed, and the impact it has on government in modern day. Polarization has varied significantly over the years ever since the 1970’s. However, what is the true cause and can it be explained? This paper will discuss some theories on how political polarization came about, and analyzes some accounts of polarization overall. Defining political polarization is vital into developing an understanding of how or why it was initially formed.

Since 1856, the two major political parties in the United States have been the Republicans and Democrats. They have immersed themselves into US politics since the 19th century and have always dominated all secondary parties in America, resulting in formation of the America’s two-party political system. The Democrats and Republicans may have different ideologies on a plethora of issues but their core beliefs are forever intertwined. The Republicans’ core belief is that they “believe that each person is responsible for his or her own place in society. Government should enable each person the ability to secure the benefits of society for themselves, their families and for those who are unable to care for themselves.” The Democrats’ core belief

It would come as a shock to few to state that polarization is present in American politics and that in some cases, that polarization is quite extensive. However, far too often such a general statement is taken at face value and is assumed as the truth in most cases. The question all too often relies on universal applicability and thus, one is left with the blanket “American politics is polarized” statement. Yet, if one were to analyze the state of views on political topics across the nation, one might discover that this blanket statement is highly inaccurate, conveying only a half truth. As Morris P. Fiorina lays out in Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, the deep-set polarization across the nation that is often assumed as generally

According to Downs (1957), the partisanship is correlated to multiple factors associated with the public, approach to a multi-party system, and ideologies of both the people and the parties that act as politicians conduits to elected offices. Downs’ (1957) first stipulation have to have a great degree of agreement in their consensus if a two party system is to succeed, which means that a two party system is dependent on people agreeing on what they want, and those parties have to pick on the aspects they use in their policies. In agreement with the Downsian interpretation, it is clear that, since a representative government involves representation of the needs, perceptions and expectations of the populous, a two party system is most stable in cases where people agree on most things, and parties only have to identify the aspects of the agreements to include in their policies. In cases where people are diverse in their political ideologies, more than two parties are necessary to reflect the perspectives of these extra groups, and a two-party system would be insufficient. Another stipulation of the Downsian interpretation is that two party systems result in increased similarities between the parties while systems with more than two parties result in increased diversity (Downs, 1957). In this case, it is

"It's a reflection of the political dynamic in America, where we don't look at America as a whole. We look at it through the red and blue prism” (Taylor, 1). The red and blue prism that Senator Olympia Snowe is referring to is the political parties that function in the United States. The current existence of political parties in America is a hindrance to effective representation of the people. Because of the lack of bipartisanship between the parties in Congress, the absence of compromise leads to gridlock in regards to passing legislations by members of Congress. In this paper, I will argue how the strengthening of political parties’ polarization in America—and the priority of party over constituents—contributed to a lack of effective