Partisanship and Electoral Incentives

For example, in order to win provincial elections in Alberta, a politician’s main focus are the big cities, Edmonton and Calgary, and perhaps a few smaller cities, but since the values and needs of Albertans, to a certain extent, tend to be similar throughout the province, the party running for office does not need to worry about pleasing everybody’s need. Also, both the Liberals and the Conservatives aim to grow the Canadian economy. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals aim to expand the economy through the creation of jobs, the investment in research and development and providing opportunities and training in trades. However, even though some of the ways by which both parties attempt to achieve the growth of the economy are similar, there are also some differences. For example, the conservatives aimed to give reduce the GST in order to allow citizens keep money in their pocket and to help them adjust to the rising costs of

This policy is results in faster results to speed up the economy for the short term. Fiscal Policy is later used to develop a plan of yearly actions and is a long term way to stabilize the economy. The next idea to stabilize the economy is a theory called monetarism which is the belief that if government did not interfere with the market economy that employment would be high and inflation low. Followers believe the government is the reason of downturns such as the recent recession.

In today’s society the majority of American taxpayers want to know which party gives them the most “bang for their buck.” The Democrats favor the Keynesian theory, which suggests managing the economy by keeping it on an even keel and avoiding fluctuations in the business cycle. This theory suggests stimulating the economy by putting money in the hands of consumers to trigger demand. This would increase government spending and possibly cut taxes in the process. On the contrary, Republicans tend to favor the Supply Side theory. This theory suggests economic stimulation can be achieved by focusing on increasing supply rather than demand. In other words, if companies make it, consumers buy it.

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

Both consumption and reinvestment in industry supports job growth, and thus theoretically benefits all classes of people. Democrats tend not to support this theory, and would rather tax the rich, and then used the money to help the poor through social programs like food stamps. Politically, both parties attempt to gain as much support as possible. However, do the differing beliefs of the two parties, they tend to attract separate and often opposing groups of people. Consequently, the Democrats who tend to attract the poor and liberal masses will often shape their policies so that they receive votes of those demographics. Similarly, the Republicans tend to form their policies around the conservative and richer populations so as to keep their support. The two parties tend differ morally as well. The Republicans support a policy of independence and limited government involvement, while the Democrats often maintain a support of social safety nets. These three factors make compromise on the part of the two parties very difficult, especially in regards to taxation. The budget problem discussed in this 1993 article has yet to be completely resolved, and many of the topics discussed in the article are still applicable to today’s debate.

Sometimes this takes the form of wooing legislators, including legislators of another political party or ideological persuasion. When polarization and partisanship make such wooing hard if not impossible, that same ambition is likely to take the form of aiding the election of candidates who can be counted on to support one's

Over the past three decades, the distance between parties has continued to grow steadily. As their distances increase it has become harder for presidents to receive votes from both parties.

Outside party spending has a significant effect in 2010 on member’s ideological position in the 112th Congress (p = 0.03). When there is outside spending present in a district, there is a slight impact on a member polarization score, which decreases by 0.003 units. While the substantive effect of outside party spending is minimal, at best, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Outside party spending promotes moderation of ideological positions by members of Congress.

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.

A recent Gallup pole reflects two top voter issues reflective of sociotropic citizens; currently they are the economy and how the government operates (Newport, 2015). Those seeking election must not only understand the major concerns of Americans but also demonstrate how they plan to correct the issues. For the most part there are two schools of thought when it comes to government and economic policies, each being contended by Democrats or Republicans. So what are these thoughts and was is the best course of action? To figure this out we must understand the ramifications of each method. Lets take a look at who the candidates are and what their positions are.

The stance of the Republican Party on the economy is that, “government should not be in control of American industries.” The idea is that regulations by the government prevent a free market economy. Another idea from their party is to form “pro-growth policies.” It is by this that when private companies are under necessary regulations alone that they are capable of forming new jobs and allowing the economy to flourish. The Democrats idea is to provide “investment in clean-energy;” the means of this is to allow for the creation of new jobs.

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

Since the beginning of American politics, we have lived in a two party political system. These two parties play a very important role in our government, they are a source of ideas for public policy, and they legally oppose each other, forcing compromises of ideas that are beneficial to the people of the United States of America. Though these two parties generally always oppose each other on the issues, some people believe that there are not significant differences between the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party. When the domestic economic issues of the 1996 and 1992 presidential elections are examined, the Republican National

Debates - these battles of mental fortitude and intellectual dexterity are arguably the cornerstone of a thriving democracy. Picture this - a latino social Democrat from Los Angeles observes a flooring critique of the distinguished saltwater economist Paul Krugman delivered by Niall Ferguson, a famous Harvard economic historian. What he notes, aside from Ferguson’s eloquence, is Ferguson’s attempt to remain intellectually honest as he discusses political polarization occurring in the modern political system as it relates to macroeconomic realities. A palpable dearth of political distortion surfaces in Ferguson's ideological argument as he describes both modern “caricatures of austerity and caricatures of stimulus.” For those unfamiliar, austerity

Baumgartner and Jones (2010) answer an array of questions on subsystem stability and instability in American politics. Accentuating the aspects of dramatic policy change and its involved actors, which have been comparatively neglected in the literature where the most focus was on the long-term stability of policymaking, the authors effectively incorporate empirical observations into their theoretical framework. This essay focuses on answering a set of unanswered questions elicited from the book.