Shift In The American Political System

Regime Parties and Realignments- The topic of party realignment was one that was brought up during lecture. Critical realignment theory has stated that some Presidents have played a larger role in the realignment of their parties. The definition of a critical realignment is when the parties and the issues that are at the forefront of the American attention change. Realignments have often been the result of a pressing issue coming to the forefront of Americas attention and allowing for third parties to arise and challenge the two major parties of that era. They often cause huge strains on the ideology and strength of the party because these issues cause rifts within the party weakening its structure. Richard Hofstadter recognized that a new issues arose around the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 and that the Presidents who won those elections all benefited by taking a stance on that issue.

A part of the “darker side” of Washington is considered by the American public as interest groups. Even James Madison described them in the federalist papers he wrote in 1787 as “factions” that could be dangerous. The modern day hasn’t changed much. People today largely agree with Madison in how they view interest groups. What interest groups do, how they are supported, and what their stances are an interesting mix of controversy, clash, and representation.

The American system has been widely recognized as a model of democracy and effective governing, but critics argue its flaws in policy making. Founders of the United States made a three branch system, in which they later introduced political parties. At times, the system can be viewed as having poor efficiency in legislation and poor accountability. In our government's system, policies are implemented after completion of a long process of incremental decision making, and that has shaped our own political community and parties.

The history of American politics has not changed rather it be 1600s to present times. It’s hard to believe we as Americans continue down the same roads that divide us. Although the repudiates claim there has been a reshape of politics nothing has changed.

In Political Parties and Party Systems, Alan Ware summarizes the two main competing theories that attempt to explain party systems. First, the Sociological approach and then the Institutional approach. In order to comprehend his analysis it is necessary to realize that party systems are in a constant state of evolution, they do not remain stagnant. This evolution may, at times, be imperceptible and at others very noticeable, such as during a revolution; but the change is undoubtedly occurring. It is much easier to understand these theories if you view these two theories from a flexible standpoint as opposed to having a concrete beginning and end with exact delineations in between.

Historically, the United States’ system had always been built with the intention to prevent the government from having too much power. As Donald S. Wolfensberger, from the Wilson Quarterly, wrote, “our system was intentionally designed with internal checks and balances precisely in order to prevent hasty action and the concentration of too much power in any one place” (Wolfensberger 63). A proactive and productive government was feared, hence avoided during the wake of this country, but today’s world is difference now. A more proactive and productive government may be need to cater to current world demands. With the intention of a more productive government, some consider the solution to be restricting U.S. national elections so that the same political party controls both the presidency and a majority in both chamber of Congress, thereby avoiding divided government.

The United States of America has been painted as one of the most democratic country in the world. The media, the American people, even the some political scientists like Hartz of Tocqueville have been responsible for painting this self portrait of a democratic, equal, white America in a canvas woven out of fibers made out of just the opposite. This false self-portrait can be demonstrated by the changes American society and economy have undergone, and their impact on today’s politics. These changes have been ones of inequality and injustice in the economic sector and of downward class mobility and increased minority needs in the social sector, and as a result, they have left a mark of dissatisfaction and division in the public opinion, which will greatly tip the balances this election for the candidate that gives society the most hope for change.

The significant changes in politics within the election of 1824 included but were not limited to the collapse of the Republican-Federalist politician framework. No candidate had run as a federalist, while each candidate at the time were Democratic-Republicans. In this election, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote plus electoral than any other candidate but ended up losing the election, to which John Quincy Adams was appointed president. Because the vote had been split four ways, he had lacked the majority in electoral college as was required by the constitution. The law was the House of Representatives had to choose the president from the top three candidates. Henry Clay used his political influence to provide John Quincy Adams with enough votes to win. When he was appointed as president, Clay went on as his secretary of state. To which Jackson’s followers had accused him of “corrupt bargaining”.

Since the late 1960s, early 1970s the American political system has gone through large changes. These changes include American’s trust in government, the importance of political parties, the role of media in society, the growth and role of interest groups, and money and campaign finance reform.

1. There were a few things that changed in American political culture between 2004 and 2012. The political culture became more polarized, as media and political rhetoric escalated significant following the 2008 election. The political landscape was change by the 2008 election, which saw an expansion of red states, and renewed interest in politics from African-Americans and Hispanics, two groups that traditionally vote Democrat. The heightened rhetoric can be seen as something of an extension of culture wars, where conservatives and liberals alike seek to more clearly define their positions on both economic and social issues. Socially, Americans have become more liberal on many issues, but there is still a divide with respect to economic issues.

The two leading parties in American Politics- Democrats and Republicans- have a steady base of support amongst the American public at all times. Often, support shown for the political parties is fervent, if not outright fanatical. In order for a voter that identifies as Republican to vote Democrat, their party has to go through realignment, or their ideologies and beliefs on polarizing issues has to change. To examine the extent to which party realignment can influence a voter’s party allegiance, changes in the voting of certain demographics must be looked at. It is also necessary to examine core issues in our country and the role they play in influencing votes toward one party or the other. Partisan loyalty is a hard thing to alter, but if certain criteria are met, then a voter’s ballot can change over time.

There are some interest groups that are extremely powerful and exercise considerable influence over the formation of public policy, whereas others are ineffectual and weak. (101). There are various factors that make a group more powerful than the other. Financial resources determines the group’s power. Organizations representing large co-operations are at a much better position to raise funds. It is unfair for regular citizens because they would not be heard because of less collective power and less money for campaign contributions. Citizens need to be heard too, regardless of their financial capabilities. Powerful interest groups do not make it possible for the citizens’ voices to be heard. The same applies to the groups that represent low income people, they have it difficult raising the money required for lobbying.

Interest groups and advocacy groups have an undeniably strong influence in Washington, and while the results of lobbying efforts are not often touted, they sway policy in areas like energy, housing, public finance, education, gun control and many more. These interest groups may represent parochial interests, but there is surely an area of policy that matches most splintered-off factions. While they’ve been portrayed as shadowy forces in lawmaking, “Interest Group Influence on US Policy Change: An Assessment Based on Policy History” by Matt Grossmann attempts to quantify and

1.Analyze the evolution of the American political system. Be sure to include one individual or document that influenced the Constitution and one change in the federal system.

After reading and researching through the websites provided I was able to gain more of an understanding and insight on political reform. When you hear the word “reform” we think of possibly, improvement, or of an amendment of what is mistaken, corrupt, and even potentially unacceptable. We want to improve the laws and agreement with prospects of the public.