Political Parties History in the United States
Introduction to Political Parties History and its Financing
Political scientist William H. Riker makes an interesting observation in his study of Duverger’s law, when he speculates on why alternative political parties collapse:
I believe the answer is that donors and leaders disappear. A donor buys future influence and access, and many donors are willing to buy from any party that has a chance to win. (In the United States, at least, many donors give to both parties.) But as rational purchasers they are not likely to donate to a party with a tiny chance of winning, and in a plurality system, most third parties have only that chance, because plurality rules give large parties a large relative advantage over small parties (Rae 1971, pp. 88-92, and Sprague 1980). Similarly a potential leader buys a career, and as a rational purchaser he has no interest in a party that may lose throughout his lifetime. So the answer to the question of failure is that third parties are rejected in the rational calculus of expected utility especially by leaders, though also in the calculus by many simple voters. (Riker, 1982)
Political Parties: History of Political Parties: Decline
Political parties no longer play such a central role in determining election outcomes in the United States. Since the early decades of the 20th century, the influence of primary elections, the mass media, and lobbyists for special interests has gradually weakened the ties of parties to both candidates and voters. The proliferation of primaries, for instance, has given individual voters the power to select candidates-a power that once resided with the party organization itself. The media also places more emphasis on candidates as individuals than as agents of parties and party platforms. Public attention now focuses on the personalities and ideas of candidates, rather than the benefits that the party as an organization can offer party loyalists. To that extent, little incentive exists for voters to support the choice of the party establishment or for candidates to adhere to a “party line.”
Individuals are also less likely to work as party activists because of the limits to the benefits parties can provide them. Where they were once pragmatic vehicles for electing candidates and offering benefits and services to supporters, parties have become more programmatic and issue-oriented. Party leadership positions, especially at the state and local level, have increasingly gone to “programmatic ideologues,” party activists whose views on issues tend to be more extreme and intense than those of most party supporters. Examples of programmatic ideologues in party organizations include environmental, gun rights, and abortion activists.
As the direct influence of political parties upon the electorate has diminished, candidate organizations in the United States have taken over more of the work of campaigning. Independent financial support from interest groups and individuals further weakens the parties. Candidate obligations to and dependence upon major donors often supersede their attachment to their party. In Europe, by contrast, parties generally control the distribution of funds for election campaigns. Rather than separate themselves from their party, strong candidates such as Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Jacques Chirac in France, and Helmut Kohl in Germany have often simply taken over their party organizations.
Though their organizational strength in the United States has diminished, political parties continue to provide expert assistance with polling, fundraising, and advertising efforts of candidates. Campaign finance law also permits parties to gather and spend money on “party-building activities” that can be used to aid specific candidates, and thus circumvent limits on contributions. Parties help to coordinate the campaigns of party members and they organize the statewide and national conventions that mark election years. However, as the capacity of parties to formulate programs, nominate candidates, and control campaigns has weakened, they have lost control over those who win elections under their name. Political parties have little basis for denying future renomination to those who deviate from the party program.” (1)
Resources
See Also
- Electoral College
- The Influence Of Political Parties
- Political Convention
- Political Convention History
- Political Science History
- Political Convention Procedure
- Primary Election History
- Electoral College History
- Electorate Constitutional Provisions
- Voter Participation
- History of Political Parties System
- American Politics
- Woman Suffrage History
- Campaigns
- Primaries
Notes and References
- Information about Political Parties History in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia
Further Reading
William H. Riker, The Two-party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science American Political Science Review, 76 (December, 1982), pp. 753-766.
Rae, D.w. 1971. The political consequences of electoral laws, rev. ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Sprague, J. 1980. On Duverger’s sociological law: the connection between electoral laws and party systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Guide to Political Parties History
About Voting and Elections
Election, Voter Registration, Electoral Systems, Election Types, How Voters Decide, Electoral Realignments, Electorate (including Electorate Historical, Electorate Gender, Electorate Race and Social Position, Electorate Property and Poll Tax and Residence) and Electronic Voting (including Electronic Voting Origins and Electronic Voting Problems).