Essay On Political Realignment

     In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

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 political system of America is very different from other developed and developing democracies. Most notable is the increased power bestowed on the upper house of the parliament, the extensive power held by the Supreme Court and the dominance demonstrated by only two major parties. In the United States, third parties have the least influence on the world’s most developed democracy’s political structure. In this democracy, people are under the US Constitution of the governmental system as well as state government and other units of local government. Local government entails counties, districts and municipalities. The evolution of the American political party system has come a long way; with Hamilton and Jefferson being regarded as the founder fathers of the modern party system. These were heads of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups in the 18th century of American politics. Ever since, the country has maintained a party system that has two main parties that are relatively stable. These are Democrats and Republicans and have remained in contest for election every time since the 1860 presidential elections. Initially, the Republican Party was the dominant party but the Democrats later gained dominance. However, the two parties became closely competitive and neither of them has been notably dominant since the 1970s (O'Connor & Sabato, n.d).

A new order of demonstrated political loyalties, such as seen in Texas and the South from Reconstruction until the middle 20th century with the movement from a Democratic majority identification to a development of parity between the Democratic and then in the latter half of the 20thcentury the shift to Republican

Dealignment has contributed to the decilne in political parties because it has caused an increase in split-ticket voting and people have started to identify themselves as independents instead of part of a major political party. Political machines have also contributed to the decline of political parties because they were ran by a specific person, taking power away from the political groups.

In the past, the Democratic party was known as the conservative, traditional party that fully supported state government while the Republican party was a supporter of the federal government control. The Republican party began as “Lincoln’s party” which caught the attention and support of the colored voters. In contrast, the Democratic party was predominantly white during this time with ideas to keep the rights of the state and the traditions of the South. Though these two parties have opposing views, they began to clash and redirect their beliefs. Over time the two main political parties have changed their platforms based on the issues of desegregation, racism in the South and placement of federal government.

Today I will be talking about how the southern borders of California and Florida voting patterns have changed in the past 25 years. In those 25 years there have been significant changes throughout how many people voted Democratic over Republican.

     Massachusetts has always been known for its politics. From the days of John Hancock and John Adams to the Kennedy Compound and failed Dukakis presidential campaign, the Bay State is, has been, and always will be a hotbed of political activism. But that does not mean that Massachusetts has a vibrant two party system.

The history of political parties in the United States has always hinged upon the key sectarian differences of the times in which such parties were existent. The very foundation of political parties in this country, which began with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, is demonstrative of this fact as those two groups were largely split on the issue of national versus states' rights and the implementation of a national bank. As the country matured from its initial beginnings in the latter part of the 18th century, the issues of sectarian differences evolved to include key aspects of sectional proclivities between the North and the South, and the impact of those differences on the burgeoning western portion of the U.S. The South favored slavery and the economic prosperity it brought to that region, whereas the North was in favor of the elimination of slavery and a transition to a more industrial economy. These sectarian distinctions were largely manifested in the political parties of the day, and explain the rise and dissolution of the national Democratic Party, which yielded to the Republican Party whose highly influential president Abraham Lincoln's election was integral in the loss of the Union and the beginning of the Civil War.

Amidst the past eight years of lackluster economic advancement, America’s prowess and respect declining worldwide, increasing government involvement in daily lives, and a President seemingly unwilling to take a solid stance on a the global threat of terrorism, the transfer of power between political parties in the White House is not so stunning. Due to the two-party system, this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. The American people are constantly seeking a political party to garner their attention and adapt to changing times, opinions, demographics, and attitudes (Cohen) and this results in the alternation of power between the two key political parties.

The Democrats of the Civil War era held the ideologies of today’s Republicans.They wanted lower taxes and lower national debt, but also did not favor government- enforced social policy. The Republicans of Lincoln’s time were pro-north, pro-federal power, and pro-taxes. They held the beliefs of today’s modern Democrats. The Pre-1964 Democrats were pro-limited government, no central bank, pro states’ rights, and pro-farmer. The Pre-1964 Republicans were anti-slavery, pro-globalization and trade, central bank, big government, and big business. The Pre-1964 Republicans modeled the Post- 1964 Democrats, and the Pre-1964 Democrats modeled the Post-1964 Republicans (DeMichele). When it comes to race, the Republicans took liberal stances until the 1960’s, when the Democrats became the party who took the liberal stances. In fact, every pre-Civil War President took a proslavery stance (Boyd). The Republican party was actually the leading progressive party in civil rights before 1964. The Democrats and Republicans

The Democrats of the Civil War era held the ideologies of today’s Republicans.They wanted lower taxes and lower national debt, but also did not favor government- enforced social policy. The Republicans of Lincoln’s time were pro-north, pro-federal power, and pro-taxes. They held the beliefs of today’s modern Democrats. The Pre-1964 Democrats were pro-limited government, no central bank, pro states’ rights, and pro-farmer. The Pre-1964 Republicans were anti-slavery, pro-globalization and trade, central bank, big government, and big business. The Pre-1964 Republicans modeled the Post- 1964 Democrats, and the Pre-1964 Democrats modeled the Post-1964 Republicans (DeMichele). When it comes to race, the Republicans took liberal stances until the 1960’s, when the Democrats became the party who took the liberal stances. In fact, every pre-Civil War President took a proslavery stance (Boyd). The Republican party was actually the leading progressive party in civil rights before 1964. The Democrats and Republicans

Party Polarization is a defining feature of contemporary at both the elite and activist levels. Party polarization is defined as “the division between the two major parties on most political issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover” (371). One explanation for party polarization is how the congressional districts are being sorted and how those districts play a role in the congressional elections. The congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party, republican or democrat, over another; in other words, they are “safe districts”. This is done by drawing a district in such a way that there is a clear majority of one party or the other. Lawmakers want to do this because it eliminates the competition within the general election.

Today, political parties are an authoritative and essential component of the United States political system. However, it is important to examine how the political parties began and evolved over hundreds of years, since they were first established. In 1794, the major political parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The major difference between these two was that the Federalists favored a strong central government, while the Democratic-Republicans preferred a central government with limited power and more state control. At the time of the election, it seemed that the prominent, distinguished Federalist Party clearly had the upper hand, but in the end the

The most important behavioral contribution to political science were election studies. In 1955 American political scientist V.O. Key, Jr. (1908–63), identified that American voters shifted their party affiliation from one political party to another, giving rise to the dominance of the Republican Party from 1860 to 1932 and of the Democratic Party after 1932. In The American Voter (1960), Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, William Miller, and Donald Stokes used the results of studies by the SRC to develop the concept of party identification. They argued that the long-recognized influences of religion, social class, region, and ethnicity contributed to voting