The implications of these impacts are likely to be widespread and influence many areas related to the American political system. At this point I will turn to examining research strategies to examine the potential implications of each of these three shifts in four areas, public participation at local levels, interest group control over information, media frames regarding polarization, and policy feedback in the absence of policy actions.
The shift in policy focus from the Federal level to the state level on a number of issues raises questions about the quality of representation in regards to these policies. The nationalization of House elections, and the use of state legislatures to redraw district lines call into question the representative nature of the process that permits these incidents to occur. Perhaps it is simply that the election of Republicans to numerous state legislatures represented public wishes to reshape the electoral system of the country at large.
To determine if these local elections are being driven primarily by a small group of individuals that is radically different from the population in general, the characteristics of those who turn out to vote at local elections should be compared to those that turnout in national elections.
…show more content…
The increasing combative polarization illustrated by Abromowitz and Webster (2015), along with the evaluation of party identification as a type of social identity (Iyangar et al. 2012) increasingly points to a view of political parties as opponents rather than colleagues. Highly polarized political elites can override media frames (Druckman et al., 2013), indicting that the battle between parties may be more than simply a debate about ideas. The gridlock and shift toward obstructionism exacerbates this, by providing media with an easily adaptable frame of combative
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.
Political parties provide the House of Representatives with organizational structure and discipline. Therefore, they appear to be essential for understanding the relationship between members and constituents. Meinke acknowledges prior literature concerning the influence of parties on representation and in policy-making choices as well as the evolution of extended leadership. However, Meinke suggests that in the representational relationship, parties have a wider scope of influence than previously believed.
" This article contends that the polarization in American political parties stems from the weakness of the parties themselves. Weak party structures might lead to fragmented ideologies, lack of party discipline, and susceptibility to outside influences such as special interest groups. Consequently, without strong leadership and cohesive party platforms, members may resort to
“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
Partisanship is defined in The American Voter “as both a set of beliefs and feelings that culminate in a sense of “psychological attachment” to a political party. It is one of the most important factors affecting the American political system. It explains, to some extent, vote choice, political engagement, partisan reasoning, and the influence of partisan elites. This definition generates two competing views of partisanship, the instrumental and expressive perspectives. This debate is what
Redistricting is an extremely important part of U.S. politics, because it is necessary to change the districts due to population shifts and population growth. “Keeping the Republic”, defines redistricting as the process of dividing states into legislative districts. It takes place after each census as a way to ensure that each voter has an equal say. Sometimes it is necessary for one state to gain districts while others may lose a district. The redistricting process is necessary, nevertheless gerrymandering is hurting American Politics.
Abramowitz’s argument that the American electorate have become more polarized and that the moderate center is disappearing is more of a quantitative argument than a qualitative one. Based on election studies and exit polls, Abramowitz’ observations include the correlation between engagement, party identification, religious and social groups, ideological realignment, and education on the idealization and polarization of the public. Contrary to Fiorina, “there is no disconnect between the political elite and the American people. Polarization in Washington reflects polarization within the public, especially within the politically engaged segment of the public” (Abramowitz 2010, x). According to the ANES (American National Election Studies), the
All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for reelection in 2010. In the 2010 U.S. House election, the average amount spent by Super PACs in 87 districts was $242,580; see Table 1 and Figure 1 for average spending by outside entities and challengers. The maximum about Super PACs spent was $912,503 in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, where Cory Gardner (R) defeated incumbent Betsy Markey (D). The average independent expenditures by political parties in 94 districts was $1,238,897. The maximum outside party spending was $4,289,706 in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, where Tim Walberg (R) beat incumbent Mark Schauer (D). The average challenger spending was $704,692 in 366 districts. Figures 2, shows the
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
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.
Parties are an important part of the political process; however, they do not have the same influence that they once enjoyed. One reason for this is the candidate-centered election that has come, in part, from the
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
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.
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.
With increasing political polarization sweeping over America, we now are seeing a decrease in effective political discussion. Solutions to America's problems are no longer up for debate, but an intense political atmosphere has boxed people into their respective parties, who refuse to acknowledge the other parties view. This phenomenon isolates and silences many in the middle who are America's moderate voters.With this being said, how should the voice of the people be properly represented, and not silenced? Specifically, how should members of Congress navigate political polarization, and successfully represent all of their constituents?