New version page

TAMU POLS 315 - POLS 315 Exam III

Documents in this Course
Load more

This preview shows page 1-2-19-20 out of 20 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 20 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

Get Th Notes from HutchingsGet Tues 10/28 from NakulAggregationThe extent to which the party draws its supporters evenly from all significant social groupsArticulationThe extent to which party supporters are concentrated in specific social groupingsGeneral RuleThe more potent dimension are those where Aggregation is low and Articulation is highCleavage Potency : dividing people into certain partiesHighestRaceReligionEconomic statusUrban/RuralRegionLowestEducationThe major U.S. Parties are generallyHigh on aggregationLow on articulationAutonomyMeasurementLinks with Foreign Organizations (1-5) D/R = 4 or 51. complete dependence, accepts international leadership1. complete autonomy; not affiliated with any international organizationCommunists Parties are more linked with other orgsLinks with Domestic Parties (1-7)1. party is subservient to the dominant party in a pattern of alliances and gov’t coalitions7. complete autonomy; engages in alliances rarely if at all34% of competitive parties got between 1 or 4Source of Members (1-6)1. entirely indirect (thru other orgs)5. entirely direct6. no formal membership at allOnly 13% of comparative parties have no members, 69% have direct membershipSources of Leaders (1-7)US Dems: 2 (2/3 or more from 2 sectors)Law and businessUS Reps 2Law and businessSources of Funds (1-7)US Dems: 2 (2/3 from 2 sectors)Labor and businessUS Reps: 1 (2/3 from 1 sector)BusinessBottom line for US Parties:Though completely autonomous in some ways less autonomous w/r to getting leaders and funds from just a few sectors.This relative “lack of autonomy” of US parties, as compared to other competitive parties1. To what extent are new parties in Europe electorally successful?2. To the extent that some are successful, do those tend to offer a difference or just an “echo” compared to established parties?3. Aside from what new parties can accomplish by being in governmental positions themselves, is there evidence that new parties affect policy in other ways?New Parties = parties added to established party systemsIn 15 enduring West European democracies91 new parties were “formed naturally” from 1960-198025 new parties naturally-formed in US between 1960 and 1980For comparison purposes, we treated the party systems as they looked from 1950-1960Findings:The plurality type of electoral system does NOT, after all, impede FORMATION of new parties,Though the plurality type of electoral system DOES impede SUCCESS of new parties?Why does the plurality/majority electoral system NOT impede the formation of new parties?Because many new parties, especially with inCONTENDER new party = a party that believes it can be electorally successfulPROMOTER new party = a party that doubts it can succeed electorally BUT exists primarily to bring attention to a particular issue or causeCHALLENGER new Party=Establishes itself at an ideological position already occupied by another party, and “challenges” that party for its votersMOBILIZER New PartyEstablishes itself at an unoccupied position, and attempts to “mobilize” its own base of supportChallenger vs. MobilizerWhich type should be more successful in elections – in the short term?ChallengersIn the long haul?MobilizersThe new parties offering the “most” choice (ie. The “new issue” mobilizers)Join the parties offering just an “echo” (ie: the challengers)In having the worst electoral success records.The parties offering choice on the “old” left right continuum (left right mobilizers) have the best electoral success recordsThird Parties in the United StatesI. Mainstream PartiesBoltersSplit away from major political parties in order to get a point.Farm-LaborFormed to represent agricultural issuesLiberal Republicans (1872)Reform minded : wanted to stop re-nomination of Grant and Rad. Reps. (over reconstruction, protectionism, and corruption)Grant was re-nominated/elected and Bolted from the Republican PartyGold Democrats – National Democrats (1896)One issue: gold vs. bi-metalismProgressives of 1912 – Bull Moose PartyWanted reform; “more democracy”Direct primariesDirect election of senatorsInitiative and referendaDixiecrat [“State rights pty”] (1948)Democrats adopted s strongII. Doctrinaire (Extremist)SocialistSingle IssueOther extremist partiesIII. Other 3rd Parties of TodayProgressives of 1912Split over civil war and issues of slavery “Bull Moose Party”Bolter Party, bolted from the RepublicanDixiecraftsBOLTERSplit from democrats over slavery southern issuesPopulists“The People’s Party”split from the democratsAnti-MasonicSingle Issue PartySplit out from Whig PartyDied out by 1840Free Soil PartySingle Issue PartySlaveryNational Farm – Labor PartiesPopulists (1892-1896)3Progressives of 1924Wanted lternative to “two conservative parties”nADoctrinaireSocialist PartiesSocialist Party [“Social Democratics ]Socialist –Workers Party (1938-today)Single Issue PartiesAnti Masonic Party [“League”] 1820’s -30’sHeld the 1st national convention in 183`Concerned with growing importance of secret societiesLiberty and Free Soil Parties (1840’s)Anti-slaveryFour freedoms: free soil, laborKnow Nothing Party 1850sAnti immigrant (nativist) and anti-catholic partySlavery issue more important by 1856; after that election disbandedProhibition Party (1872-today)Toen between narrow and broadOther Doctrinaire PartiesProgressive Party of 1948 and 1952Henry Wallace (FDR Ag Sec & VP; fired by Truman)Seen as “satellite” of the Communist PartyCommunist PartyGreen Party of the U.S. – 1900Only in California in 1992IN 1996 AND 2000, national; Ralph nader as pres candidate“Liberal and Progressive”pro choicepro-national health carepro-disarmamentLibertarian Party (1971-)“less government is best”sometimes 3rd largest pres partyindividual freedomfree marked economyWizard of Oz, William Bryan, Populist AnalysisWhat groups of voters tend to align with what party?These groups of people has varied over timeWho made up the Democrat’s “New Deal Coalition”?African AmericansPoor, lower classUnemployedBlue collar laborCatholics and JewsThe White SouthBig urban areas of the NorthWho made up the Republicans’ “New Deal Coalition”?Business owners/ managers and professionalsUpper classMore – educatedProtestants (Northern White)Rural Midwest and Northeast (New England)But it hasn't always been that way!In fact, we recognize three types of elections/electoral systemRealigning election:The basic


View Full Document
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view POLS 315 Exam III and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view POLS 315 Exam III and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?