What Is Lowi's Proposed Three-Party Policy Typology?

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.

In his book Divided We Govern, he challenged the well-established idea that divided government causes gridlock. After combing through legislative wrap-ups and works of specialists in the field, he discovered that there isn’t a causal relationship between divided government and gridlock. He brings up numerous cases where divided governments have passed more legislation than unified governments, and vice versa. He argues that just because a government is divided or unified, doesn’t mean more or less legislation will be passed by default. In addition, he argues that divided governments don’t produce worse laws than unified governments. According to Mayhew, other variables such as election politics play large roles in how legislation will be passed.

US parties are often described as organisationally weak because they are essentially ‘broad coalitions’. For example they contain moderates like McCain republican) and Obama democrat), while also having a more conservative wing. Therefore stronger party organisation would give parties a narrower appeal and potentially alienate large ‘voting blocs’ or proportions of the electorate. This is a reason why it is argued that having ‘organisationally weak’ parties is a necessity in the US political system. It has therefore been argued that symptoms of weak organisation e.g issue centred or candidate-centered election campaigns are deliberate as parties attempt to gain a maximum

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

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.

While it may be true that government institutions have the authority to pass a policy, the point often overlooked, is that the people on the political level have the say to whether they agree or disagree to passing a policy. The citizens of the United States lived on the principle that authority of the government is base on the consent of the people. If the consent of governing and participation of the citizens are ignored, we would fail to have a democratic government. People outside of the government are the ones who are expressing their concerns to the government and it is the responsibility of the officials in the government, to take actions of addressing the issues, resolving the issues, and implementing policies that cater to the majority of the people. Interest groups and unions who have the majority support from the citizens can have a stronger leverage in voicing their public opinions through social movements, voting campaigns, and elections that can lead for a policy to be put into place. As a result, executive officials are more likely to seek attention to those with popular support within interest groups or unions as a way to gain popularity in voting’s. Majority vote from the parties and groups have the say to what policy is needed to be address, passed, and implemented into the bill. It is essential that parties, interest groups, and unions are aligned and work together with government officials. Otherwise, if government officials commit tyranny, it could lead for an overthrow of the officials. Regardless of which political level to be the most powerful, it is essential to understand that public policy requires full cooperation and passionate efforts from all levels consisting from governmental, political, and

While there is agreement the two-party majority system provides a government with differing ideologies which often causes gridlock during decision making process, not everyone sees a problem with the polarization of the ideologies and the gridlock it causes. In the article by R. S. Melnick, titled “The Conventional Misdiagnosis: Why “Gridlock” is Not Our Central Problem and Constitutional Revision is not the Solution,” he compiles an argument refuting polarization and gridlock to be a problem under the current constitutional

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.

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.

Deborah Stone begins her book, Policy Paradox, by stating, “a theory of policy politics must start with a simple model of political society, just as economics starts with a simple model of economic society.” Deborah Stone examines two policy-making models to describe the paradox’s of the process model for public policy. The two models include: the market (rational model) and the Polis (community) model. Stone states she contrasts these two models to “illuminate some ways the market model distorts political life.” As discussed in class, the market model follows five steps:

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

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.

This paper is a review of chapter’s one (1), two (2) and three (3) in Thomas A. Birklands (2016) fourth edition regarding policy process. The reading attempts to define and show what is meant by policy process, how government, politics and the public are intertwined, problems that are associated with the policy process and how we address the problems. Current day events as well as past history are applied to the practice of policy process which assists in defining the process and highlighting its connection and importance. Thomas A. Birklands refers to the Clinton administration, the Obama administration and the George W. Bush administration, the DARE Program, World War II, and the Vietnam War, in the chapters and leads us down a path discussing

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

Distributive politics has flourished in American government because of legislative processes in Congress. Pet projects like those in the highway bill are possible in American government. James Madison said that America did not need to worry about factions because in such a large country there would be so many factions that they would cancel each other out. What Madison did not anticipate was that these factions would work together to further their own agendas. A sort of "I'll vote for your part of the bill if you vote for mine." Passing legislation is such a long and complicated process that can be simplified if the bill just passes. So if every congressmen has a part of the bill that benefits his district, the bill will be easier to pass. Committees are put together so that the work in congress can be split up. This results in many bills being passed strictly based on pork barrel issues. No one opposes anything because to rework a bill is too much work. And why vote down a bill when your district will benefit from it being passed.