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

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.

James Campbell’s book is a political masterpiece that outlines how American voters are divided across the United States. Campbell provides a totally new perspective on the polarization with a historically context on how and why voters are politically divided. Campbell’s argument may seem indirect, but he provides circumstantial evidence and empirical evidence to support his claim of polarization. Polarized is significant to understanding American polarization, and surprisingly other books fail in comparison due to their lack of empirical evidence. Campbell’s book was written in 2016 which provides updated information that can help explain the cause of 2018 election polarization among voters.

“The argument that polarization in America is almost entirely an elite phenomenon appears to be contradicted by a large body of research by political scientists on recent trends in American public opinion. While there have been relatively few studies directly addressing Fiorina’s evidence and a growing body of research indicates that political and cultural divisions within the American public have deepened considerably since the 1970s. These studies have found that the political beliefs of Democratic and Republican voters have become much more distinctive over the past 30 years” (Abramowitz and Saunders

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

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.

United States of America has a democratic political system with two major parties: Democratic and Republican. This research paper will provide the insight on the social and cultural characteristics of both Republican and Democratic loyalists as well as uncommitted middle. Many changes occurred in the behavior of American electorate since 1952, however, some trends remain today. The existence of the Electoral College affects the campaigns of the presidential candidates. This paper will also analyse the concerns of citizens with this system and whether it is beneficial for candidates and reveals the true choice of the population.

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

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

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

Political polarization is defined as the average ideological distance between the median Democrat and Republican in the state legislature (Hopkins & Sides, 16).  Political polarization is not only seen in the government it’s also recognized throughout the electorate and within political activists.   Amongst the political spectrum, it appears that the middle has slowly been declining.  The electorate had previously been viewed as more moderate but recently the centrist view has been eliminated.

In American politics, the entrenched dominance of two major parties has long been considered a cornerstone of the democratic process. However, this system has increasingly come under scrutiny for its limitations in representing diverse voices, perpetuating polarization, and hindering progress. Therefore, it is imperative to dismantle this archaic structure and pave the way for a more inclusive and dynamic political environment. The rigid structure of the two-party system often forces voters into a binary choice, leading to a suppression of diverse voices and limiting voter choice. Bibby and Maisel (2003) discuss how this binary approach diminishes the authenticity of democratic representation, as many individuals feel compelled to vote for

"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

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 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

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.