Expressive Partisanship: The American Vote

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

Over the past three decades, parties and partisan organizations have evolved to become key features of today’s House of Representatives; the two are now essential to congressional policy and the member’s careers. In the article “Presentation of Partisanship: Constituency Connections and Partisan Congressional Activity,” published in the Social Science Quarterly (2009), Scott R. Meinke investigates how House members explain and frame their participation in partisan activity to constituency representation. In simpler terms, Meinke examines the role of partisanship in strategic home-style choices. The author uses data from the 107th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, with a focus on the member’s public websites and how they present leadership activity to conclude that Congressional parties have an impact beyond electoral outcomes and the policy process. Meinke discovers that there exists a significant difference in the extent to which members of the House publicize their activity.

Many Americans are aware of the polarization that exists within them and within the government. However, people do not realize the extent of the polarization and the effect that it has on government functions. Susan Page, author of “Divided We Now Stand” explains that many Americans are aware of the increasing polarization, when a political party influences the stance of a person, and that citizens believe that polarization influence politicians more than it influence them. However, Page argues that voters are to blame as well. She uses a survey to illustrate the choices that Americans make on a certain policy. The results of the survey show that Democrats and Republicans choose the stance of their political party, regardless of their own personal opinions on the actual policy (Page). Page’s point proves that politicians are not the only ones that contribute to the government’s dysfunction, and that voters might want to re-evaluate how they process their information and their choices if they wish to see a change.

This creates a paradox for the reader. In a book designed to remove the impression of polarity, why single out specific subjects in this polarizing way? The logical conclusion is that these topics do have a specific effect on refuting the polarization claim. In the opening chapters, Fiorina et al. illustrate the perceived polarization of partisans, the war in Iraq, and a myriad of other factors like gun control (p. 1-75). With partisanship they found the issue to be a problem of “confusing positions with choice” (2011, p. 25) and thus dismissing the polarization of Americans. Analyzing he war in Iraq yielded similar results (p. 51-55). The authors found that when asked to judge broad statements, like Bush’s handling of Iraq, respondents answered in the partisan way, with more republicans supporting and democrats disapproving (p. 54). However, when the same people were asked to rate Bush’s handling of Iraq in terms of individual acts, the polarization faded (p. 52-53). While there were still dissidents and supporters, the divide was not along partisan lines but rather individual lines, evidenced by the near equal support of republicans and democrats for the use of military force overseas. All of this supports the argument that Fiorina et al. make throughout but provides no insight into why some topics are grouped

Political Polarization in America Today it is common to hear politicians and journalists refer to “today’s polarized America” and lament the effects of polarization on American political discourse. But what exactly is this polarization and is it really so destructive?

First, we can analyze the costs that Abramowitz associates that are bought about polarization being present among the political elites. The first cost is fairly obvious, with increased polarization, there are fewer moderates representing each party in the House. The term “Liberal Republican” or “Conservative Democrat” has all but seemingly disappeared over the past several decades. This is in part due to as previously mentioned, better party sorting amongst the electorate. Another cost that Abramowitz sheds some light on is the increased instances of divided party control of the government. As Abramowitz explains on page 161, due to the fact that the president is elected separately from Congress, there is always the possibility that one or both chambers of Congress that are a different party than the presidents. This leads too many issues, as one can imagine, legislation nearly coming to a complete halt, as each party has a different agenda that they would like to enact. This level of partisan gridlock or divided party control I think is perfectly illustrated as it relates to Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As the Washington Post reported, as of March 2014,

The politics of the United States is one of the most advanced in the whole world. But even at this stage, the politics is dominated by pettiness that stems from partisanship. This has ensured that no issues is ever passed amicably through the national legislative housed. Every debate is viewed through the lenses of partisanship.

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.

When you observe the graph that the American National Election Studies has created, you begin to notice a pattern. This pattern would be that there was either an increase or decrease in the strength of the people's partisanship for each party around the time that a new president came into office. It seems that every single time that there was a change in the political leader of our country that people either felt very strong partisanship or very little. This must have to do with the idea that with each new president, the new issues arising in the country will be handled a certain way. Furthermore, how said issues are handled by those in office affect the partisanship. These new issues

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.

Recently, Party polarization in the US has been gaining more attention. Some claim that it is a recent phenomenon, but in fact polarization has been ongoing ever since the 18th century. Political polarization is when an individual makes a decision on an issue, policy or candidate solely based on the political party they identify with or with their chosen ideology. In the 1790s, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists were polarized over tariffs, the national bank and federal versus state and citizen power. Between the 1830s and the 1840s, polarization took form between the Whigs and the democrats. In the 1850s polarization was focused on the issue of slavery, agrarian and currency issues. In the 1930s it was welfare and in the 1960s

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

Many political science researchers study the forces that drive the vote. One of the earliest, and most well known, books about election studies is The American Voter. Written in 1960, the book tries to explain a model that describes what drives Americans to vote the way they do. The model suggests that social factors determine ones party identification, which determines one's issue positions and evaluation of candidate's characteristics. These forces all work together to determine how one will vote. This model may or may not still hold true today, as political researchers are not in agreement as to what exactly drives the vote. One thing that does remain true, however, is that factors such as social groups, party identification, issues,

There are various factors that influence how a voter will cast their choice in the U.S. elections. Party identification is the most top factor in a person's voting choice. Some voters are members of either the two majors political parties; the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. These party affiliations are usually determined by a person's influences from family, peers, media and the assessment of the candidates and the issues. Independents who are not affiliated with either party does not have a particular loyalty to any party. They vote mainly on the issues (Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, 2011, p.193).