Representative Peter DeFazio's Party Unity Score Discussion

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 English Civil War in the 1600’s was fought between two parties in the government, the Tories and the Whigs, that either supported the king or disapproved of him. This violent show of political partisanship may have warned the Founding Fathers that political parties had the power to divide governments and lead to tyranny. Aside from the possibility of leading to a violent power struggle, political parties have the potential to draw away politicians’ loyalty from the American population as a whole to the benefit of their political group. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he never wanted to adhere to a group when he was capable of thinking on his own. He called submitting a whole opinion to a party, “the last degradation for a free and moral agent.” (Hatzenbuehler 32) Arduous bipartisanship also leads to a stalemate in Congress. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, in Congress seventy-five percent of salient issues in 2014 were in gridlock. (Binder 2016) Attitudes become increasingly sharp in politics as the political sides compete, each trying to prove the other a radical. If there were no political parties every member would most likely treat their fellow members with civility in the hopes that they would choose to support mutual

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.

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.

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.

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.

It was found that national party divisions are typically ran by elites that worked together to unite divided parties to participate together in the hopes of the party winning the presidency. Having a diverse set of candidates does not imply that the party is divided although it could worsen existing disunions. Measuring national party division was crucial in the research; in the 1970s delegate votes at the national convection gave an approximate measure of divisiveness. One way that national party division can be measured is by the proportion of convention votes through the Democratic nominee without the corresponding proportion for the Republican nominee. This delegate-based measure is for the most part based on party activist, in which are picked by the presidential campaign by the partisan voters. On the other hand, another manner to measure is by aggregate primary vote that is comparing the proportion of the national primary won by the two nominees. Moreover, to measure the impact national party division has they used convection votes and aggregate primary vote to portray that the substantive conclusion does not rely on how the variable is measured (12). Although there is no precise or best way to put to use state level primary divisiveness it is clear that in presidential campaigns, a divisive state primary the electorate rather have a candidate than the eventual nominee. Thus, this type of divisiveness can be measured by the proportion of the vote for the candidate other than the final nominee. Another approach would rely on the competitiveness of the primary, which is measure by a vote margin of the two leading candidates in the

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

Congressional polarization can easily be tracked unlike the polarization trends in the public which causes the moderates to become ignored. According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But,

David Brady and Craig Volden’s The Revolving Gridlock discusses the ability of Congress members to prevent and even kill legislation, even if their party does not possess majority control. The authors note that it does not always take opposing political ideology in the Executive and Legislative branches to create an atmosphere of stagnation within government. Instead the conflicting views and sectarian nature of the House and Senate, create sub-parties that become the obstacles of bipartisan compromises, and, in doing so, progress, creating the concept of the “revolving gridlock.” The writers consider the concept to be a direct result of the necessity for majority vote to pass bills and two-thirds to override presidential vetoes. Yet, there

The United States Congress has been on a downward spiral in the past decade, in 2009 their approval rating was at 37% compared to a mere 13% as of this week. This begs the question of whether our electoral laws for Congress are truly working in our current political climate. The house of representatives currently divided at 240 Republicans to 194 Democrats and 1 independent. This clear divide has been seen in the inability to pass legislation and the clear lack of partisanship within the house.

Factors that have contributed to the legislative gridlock and lack of political compromise characteristic of most congressional sessions over the past decade include blind partisanship, mean-spiritedness and finally scandals Congress has been involved in. in relation to blind partisanship, Congress is seen as polarized based on party lines with both parties moving away from the unifying center. Statistics have shown the ideological gap between the republicans and democrats is as its widest. The two appear to vote in opposite directions in favor of their parties without giving thought to the wishes of Americans, which also contributes to the aspect of mean-spiritedness. The scandals of Congress have been well known to contribute towards the division that has developed among Americans. An instance is when is where 47% of Americans supported McCain’s republican’s ideology on the war against Iraq compared to the 45% who supported Barrack’s democratic ideology on the same.

This article relates how House Bill 25, a bill designed to end straight-ticket voting in any Texas election, passed through the Texas Senate with precursory support by a two-thirds vote on May 17. An update states that the bill received conclusive support through a vote of 19-11. Opponents of the bill believe that it is an attempt to undermine the power of Democrats, as well as unfairly affect minority voters. In the previous year, Michigan attempted to enact legislation much like House Bill 25, but it’s endeavors were halted by a federal judge, on the grounds formerly mentioned. Advocates

Why are certain political parties highly unified in parliaments? This article investigates cases of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), in order to answer this question. According to the studies of Australian politics, the ALP is not ideological cohesive and it is difficult for the leadership of the ALP to impose discipline on their MPs. Existing theory predicts that such party’s unity would be low. However, in fact, Australian MPs rarely object to their party in roll call votes. To solve this puzzle, focusing on party organization, this article argues that intra-party coordination mechanism affects party unity. Qualitative case studies show that the ALP’s policy-making organizations called the caucus policy committees functioned as an intra-party

A party caucus is a meeting of the members of a party in a legislative chamber to select party leaders and develop party policy. Party unity is found in states with two party systems and helps party members to vote similarly. The political caucus aids in how members vote. Legislatures with single party has had long standing dominance or control parties are less important is shaping legislatures. A rebirth of partisanship and