Dale Story POLS 2311 CLASS OUTLINE--SECOND EXAM 1. POLITICAL PARTIES a. Functions i. Interest representation—bottom up—facilitate public participation ii. Interest mobilization—top down—generate support—possibly more significant than interest representation iii. Resolve conflict—simplify choices—provides candidates contesting elections iv. Education—provide most of the information that we use to make our political decisions—“indoctrination” b. Two-Party System i. History—long tradition of two party system. ii. Institutional Explanations 1. Proportional representation (parties represented proportional to their total vote—multi-member districts—party lists) VS. majority or plurality rule (winner-take-all—no rewards for finishing second—single-member districts) 2. Opinion orientation—Unimodal (concentrated in the center—one “mode” or “peak”—favors two party system) VS. multimodal (more polarized, e.g., one concentration on the left, another in the middle, another on the right—with separation between each—favors multi-party system) iii. Third Parties 1. U.S. examples a. Populist—late 1800s—farmers & debtors felt alienated by both parties and formed the Populist party led by William Jennings Bryan, who won 8.5% of the vote in 1892. In 1896 Bryan won the Democratic nomination. b. “Bull Moose” party—Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican party by trying to push reform too hard. In 1912 he ras as the candidate of the progressive “Bull Moose” party. He received 27.4% of the vote, split the Republicans, and enabled Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) to win. c. LaFollette Progressives—1924—Robert LaFollette broke from the Republican party to form the Progressive party—received 16.6% of the vote in 1924. d. American Independent Party—1968—George Wallace received 13.5% of the vote. e. Reform—1992 (18.9%) and 1996 (8.4%)—H. Ross Perot f. Ralph Nader? 2000 (2.7%) and 2004 (1.4%) 2. Purpose and success—Typically last only one election—often focusing on a single issue—goal is to push particular policy initiatives (from “free silver” to defeating NAFTA) iv. Differences Between the Parties 1. Tweedle-dum vs. Tweedle-dee argument—unimodal opinion orientation—all opinions and preferences are concentrated in the center—elections are won or lost in the center. 2. Leadership differences-- Democratic leaders further to the left—Republican leaders further to the right. Some Conservative and Liberal voting scales demonstrate differences. 3. Coalitions differ—Democrats (minorities, labor, lower income, lower education, Jewish? South? North-East)—Republicans (business, white-collar, higher income, higher education, professioinals, more rural, South? Midwest). Geographic Regions. In Texas. v. Party Competition1. Never overly divisive—both parties support the system—partisanship is often played down and infrequently rewarded 2. National, state, and local levels—(i) National—evenly competitive—no single party has consistently dominated (either re-alignments or shared government); State—one party (intra-party competition, primaries are most important, examples) or two party; Local—varies—many “safe” seats—party machines and political bosses 3. Incumbency—Advantages: name recognition, “pork barrel” politics, franking, expense accounts, case workers. vi. Party Organization 1. National level—very loose and decentralized—essentially exist only every 4 years when state parties aggregate to choose a presidential nominee—party cohesion and unity are at a minimum—little party discipline. The national organizations have few functions, powers, activity, etc. Unified party every 4 years depends on popularity of the “ticket.” 2. State and local levels—much stronger and more cohesive—patronage is very important—ultimate is the evolution of party machines vii. Party Identification 1. Strength—while a majority still “identify” (what does this mean?) with one party or the other), those who are “independent” is increasing. Other than ethnicity, still the best predictor of presidential vote. 2. “Normal” vote—while Democrats continue to out-number Republicans in terms of party identification, Republicans frequently out-poll Democrats. Reason—voter turnout. 2. INTEREST GROUPS a. Functions i. Link individuals to the government ii. Enhance individual well-being iii. Reduce potentially divisive conflicts—overlapping interests b. “Assumptions” of Interest Group Theory i. Membership is widespread (true?). Active membership? Iron Law of Oligarchy ii. Groups effectively translate expectations into demands (true?). Mostly symbolic. Usually a function of resources below (especially financial contributions). iii. Each group has equal access (true?). Again, depends on the distribution of resources (such as financial contributions) iv. Groups help make individuals feel more influential (true?). In most cases, yes—the key is perception vs. reality v. Conclusion—Most interest groups do not have an active membership and only produce symbolic results. The greatest exception is the NRA. Access is not equal, but membership in an interest group does make us perceive that we have more influence than we actually do. c. Lobbying Resources i. Campaign contributions (“money talks”) ii. Governmental contacts—lobbyists employed for their contacts (former representatives) iii. Information—provide surveys, studies, and the like that benefit their side iv. Voting blocs—Claim that the representative will lose a voting bloc if they do not support that interest group v. Unethical activities—Bribes, illegal gifts, illegal favors, etc. d. Lobbyist Strategies and Roles i. Develop access—“foot in the door”—appointments—direct contact. ii. Organize support—organize grass-roots efforts—mass mailings. iii. Form mutual alliances—coalitions of several interest groups (e.g., automobile companies and autoworkers labor union) iv. Monitor legislation—know when key votes are occurring.v. Delay—appeals, especially to the courts. e. Regulation of Lobbyists—Registration and spending reports. 3. THE PRESIDENCY a. Presidential Powers i. Constitutional—Decisions that strengthen the presidency: separate executive; one person is chief executive and head-of-state; fixed terms; initially indefinite