The Danger of Factions I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical Discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having Its roots in the strongest passions of the human Mind… George Washington

“Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties” E.E. Schattschneider

Political Parties Parties seek to have their members obtain office (interest groups seek only to influence policymaking) Organization Party-in-the-electorate Party organizations Party-in-government

Three Dimensions of Party Party-in-the- electorate Party organizations Party-in- government

Closed Primary—Have to preregister to receive a specific party ballot Open Primary: can choose a party ballot on election day

Conflicting Philosophies Pragmatism Be practical Work on results Limit ideals to get at least part of what you want “The perfect is the enemy of the good” Idealism Set out principles Work to achieve them. Hold fast! Compromise is selling- out! Select one issue at the micro and one at the macro-level. What is an idealistic approach for each issue? What is a pragmatic approach for each issue? How does this create tension? How can this tension be resolved for each issue?

How should parties behave: Theory 1: Pragmatic Parties should be Pragmatic Anthony Downs’s economic theory of democracy Parties seek the median voter Policy positions attract voters like businesses attract customers Third Party issues are often co-opted

Theory 2: Idealistic Definition--The Theory of Responsible Party Government Parties should present coherent platforms for the people to evaluate Voters select one party, and that party should then implement the promised platform of policies Voters should judge the party based on performance and either re-elect them or choose the other party

Why do we have a two-party system? Cultural Reasons Electoral Laws: Winner take all system Anthony Downs’ Economic Theory of Democracy

Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation Electoral Systems Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation Winner Take all system Single member districts Candidate who receives the most number of votes wins the seat Loser gets nothing Proportional Representation System Political parties in the legislature receive a number of seats proportional to the percentage of vote they received Loser gets less

Downsian logic reduces the likelihood of a third party becoming successful

What explains Party Victories? 1860-1928: most Presidents were Republican 1932-1968: most Presidents were Democratic

Theory of Critical Elections: Stable Alignment, Critical Election, Realignment Parties are coalitions of groups Members of groups socialize youth to follow party Party identification does not change unless there is a crisis An election that causes a change in party alignments is called a critical election A critical election is followed by a realignment

Explaining Turnout Electoral Laws Social Psychological Factors Mobilization Factors

Should voting be compulsory: Countries that Mandate Voting Argentina Australia Brazil Democratic Republic of Congo Ecuador Luxembourg Nauru North Korea Peru Singapore Uruguay

Expansion of Suffrage

Electoral Laws Influence Turnout Registration laws Availability of registration forms Deadline to register to vote (fifteen days in CA) Voter ID Polling hours Availability of mail-in ballots

Efficacy: self-assessment of your own abilities Internal efficacy: assessment of your own abilities to understand and participate in politics External Efficacy: assessment of how well the government listens to you

Voting Turnout: averages 1976-2008 (US Census Dept) FIGURE 8.4 The Percentage of Americans Who Voted, 1976–2008 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex, and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2008”; “Reported Voting and Registration by Region, Educational Attainment, and Labor Force: November 1964 to 2008,” www.census.gov (accessed 11/24/09); U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration by Region, Educational Attainment, and Labor Force: November 1964 to 2008,” www.census.gov (accessed 11/24/09); Douglass R. Hess and Jody Herman, “Representational Bias in the 2008 Electorate,” November 2009, www.projectvote.org (accessed 11/21/09).

Trust in CA govt/Fed Govt

Measure of External Efficacy: Cynicism

Mobilization: the efforts of others to motivate us to vote Examples of Mobilizers: Family Media Political Parties Churches/Temples Get out the vote drives by interest groups and campaigns The level of competition

Voter Turnout: factors Electoral Laws + Political Efficacy (External and internal) + Mobilization=Probability of Voting