Political Polarization Vs Deliberative Poll

Political elections, especially presidential elections have many variables that influence the voters when they go to the polls. Many researchers use various methods to figure out all the possible outcomes of the election and what the voters are looking for in a particular year. This year has been unique because of the different personalities that the candidates own. This new diversity has caused researchers to revise their tactics from earlier years. Also, negative political ads for this election year have had some impact on voters. Furthermore, a candidate’s religious affiliation will also have an effect on different segments of the population. Finally, in previous presidential elections, divided parties rarely won presidential elections. Will this year have the same end result? Finally, the exact effects caused by these variables can sometimes only be determined by research studies. These studies have to be ready to hit the core of the issue affecting the outcome. Furthermore, the questions have to be tailored, balanced and presented the same way in all outlets.

In American politics, public opinion is mostly a latent force that typically has no important bearing on national decision making unless citizens become unusually attentive to politics. Many citizens are uninformed, which leads to inconsistent opinions. In Tides of Consent, there are many factors that shift public opinion. Some changes are fast and responsive, such as spikes in presidential approval, and some changes are slow, and occur in increments that may be overlooked. Public opinion in American politics is meaningless individually, but aggregately, public opinion is meaningful.

Polarization in the United States today exists on two levels: polarization in the electorate and polarization in the elite. While separate, these two groups are perpetually intertwined. Polarization in the electorate refers to the movement of voters toward ideological extremes, and the ideological gap between voters on either side has been increasing in recent decades (Kuo). A study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2014 confirms the proliferation of polarization in the electorate: it found that since 1994, voters agree more intensely with their party’s policies and view the policies of the opposing party as a “threat to the nation’s well being” (“Political Polarization”). One factor that has led to this increase is the utilization of new technologies by the media, which allow voters to access more information than ever before. This broad scope of available information allows the public to be selective in what they consume (Kuo). As a result, many people participate in confirmation bias, meaning they seek out sources that share their beliefs; this strengthens their preexisting opinions and their level of partisanship. Another factor that increases political polarization in the electorate is geography. Republican voters tend to live in suburbs or rural areas, while Democrat voters are more likely to live in urban areas (Kuo). These geographic boundaries impact polarization because

In order to understand the concept of political polarization one must first understand the meaning of ideology. Ideology is defined as “a manner or…content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.”(Merriam-Webster) Voting based on ones ideology is considered a rather recent phenomenon. Prior to the rise of ideological based voting, candidates were selected and scrutinized based on their own personal attributes and characteristics rather than their ideas. Prior to the 1970’s, there was not a huge difference in ideology between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. For example, take for instance the House and Senate votes on the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. In this vote both Democrats and Republicans were widely in support of its passage. (SSA) This is in stark contrast to today when neither party can agree on the future of Social Security. Another example would be the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act

As a consequence, polarized Congress will only fall under a gridlock that will obstruct the legislation process. However, I believe that there are ways in improving political polarization. Firstly, the journalistic coverage of public officials is in dire need of adjustments. Media should shift their focus and resources on the extreme members of Congress. This process will force those legislators to be more moderate in order to keep their positions. Lastly, people just need to vote. Even though “87 percent of registered voters voted in the 2012 presidential election, this only represents 42 percent of the total U.S population” (openstax, 249). This is an alarming number for a democratic country since all citizens are encouraged to participate under a democracy. If there are more people voting, officials are forced to appeal to a broader spectrum of

Jay Van Bavel’s 2016 article addresses an important and relevant issue: voters’ deeply divided perceptions of presidential candidates. According to Bavel, approximately 70 million viewers tuned in to watch the final presidential debate on October 19, 2016. In theory, one would be valid in assuming that while processing such an event, everyone should be experiencing the same reality—all are watching the same debate, hearing the same words said by the same people. Strangely, however, this is not the case: in reality, Republicans and Democrats concluded the debates with drastically separate conclusions on the candidates. According to a CNN poll referenced to within Bavel’s article, Hillary Clinton won the first debate, with 67% compared to Donald Trump’s 27%. However, a further examination of these statistics reveals an obvious divergence between the democratic and republican parties. According to democrats, Clinton won (89% to 5%); according to republicans, Trump won (54% to 28%). Why is there such a great divide when both parties were presented with the exact same information? People do not see the world objectively—without the influence of personal biases. Instead, people reinforce the goals and values of the partisan group they identify with, allowing the party’s views to color their perceptions of identical information (Bavel).

The political climate today is increasingly becoming more turbulent as Republicans and Democrats volley for superiority in Washington. The two parties are becoming more polarized by the hour, and this is affecting the ability of the government to move forward and pass legislation and continue to improve America. The Senate is in a state of gridlock on some of the most important issues to the people of the United States to date, and yet the senators which the people elected are instead caught up in fighting the people on the other side of the aisle. They should be listening to what their constituents need and want. Today Republican senators are using filibusters, scare tactics, and even entire news networks

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

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

These two phenomena are interconnected because not only is there a growing polarization between liberals and conservatives, but also within the Republican Party itself. It’s facing a historic divide over the party’s basic principles and identity. The issues raised by grass-roots voters (resistance to immigration, concern about wages, etc.) are deviating from and clashing with the Republican establishment’s interests (openness to immigration, free trade, etc.) (Healy and Martin – article from class).

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

The article, “How Presidents Shape Their Party’s Reputation and Prospects: New Evidence,” explains previous presidents and their popularity. There are five main questions that are stated regarding presidents’ popularity. Gary Jacobson, the author of this article, explains where he acquires his statistical research and his use of it throughout the article. Regarding the previous statements, there is a detailed description about the results that are found from the research. By the end of this review, the reader understands my overall opinion on this article. With this being said, what is the question the author hopes to answers, what method does the author use to answer the question, what is the answers found, and my thoughts on the article

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.

If one stops and takes a look at our political system today, one could be surprised by the remarkable progress that we have accomplished in this great country of ours. Many people believe that all is good in the USA, and that our political system could not be any better than it is today. However, this isn't true, our political system is taking a dive towards the worst. Who might the culprit be behind this decline of the political system in America today? The answer to this, is none other than polarization and partisanship. One might wonder, how exactly does this spread? The answer lies in social media. Americans will be able to find common ground and become less polarized, in a political sense, if and only

Polarization is increasing. Good or bad, the electorate is dividing more and more down party lines. Voters are struggling against each other in increasingly rigid groups with increasingly rigid ideologies. In Polarized Public Alan Abramowitz catalogs the data showing this trend through time (2013). The trend towards the poles of American politics has continues since his studies and shows no sign of stopping.