1. Polarization and American Politics:
Is there a Center?

2. Polarization Argument
Few moderates in politics
Partisanship plays greater role in mass voting
Partisanship plays greater role in Congress
Party candidates stake out more clear ideological differences
“Culture war,” Red v. Blue nation, etc.

3. The Electorate, 1974
Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group

4. The Electorate in 2004
Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group

5. Polarized Partisans & Elites
Partisans “sorting themselves”
Gradual realignments since 1968
Demise of southern Democrats
Demise of New England Republicans
Transition from economic to social issue divisions
Institutions should reflect polarization

6. Party Unity in US House Floor Votes,
100 80
proportion of all floor votes with
majority of one party against
majority of the other
percent 60
% of Democrats voting with party
on such votes
% of Republicans voting with party 40
on such votes 20
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year

7. GOP trends since 1974
Ideological self-placement of Republicans (excluding leaners)

8. Dem trends since 1974
Ideological self-placement of Democrats (excluding leaners)

9. Polarization, 109th Congress
Number of seats; classified by DW-Nom member’s voting score

10. Feelings about 'opposite' party's presidential
candidate (thermometer scores)
Graph plots trends in Democratic identifiers’ feelings about Republican presidential
candidates and Republican identifiers feelings about Democratic presidential
candidates.

11. Gap between Democrats and Republicans' Feelings
toward Republican candidates for Congress.
Graph plots the gap between Democrats feeling thermometer ratings of
Republican candidates, and Republican’s scores about Republican
candidates.

12. Evidence of growing Polarization
When seen this way:
Evidence of growing Polarization
Partisan voters more partisan
Partisan representatives more partisan

13. Another Picture of Electorate
Retreat from parties and party system (dealingment):
More independents
Independents qualitatively different than partisans
Little mass support for two-party system
Polarization an artifact of electoral system
(safe seats & where people live…)

14. The Electorate, 1974
Ideological self-placement of ‘everyone’. Percent w/in each group

15. A Centered Electorate, 2004?
Ideological self-placement of ‘everyone’. Percent w/in each group

16. The Electorate in 2004
Moderate Independents 26% of electorate (largest block)
Ideological self-placement of ‘everyone’. Proportion of electorate

17. Independents,
Responses to initial NES question, “Generally speaking…..”

18. Independents, since 1974
Ideological self-placement of independents (including leaners)

19. 2004: The Electorate
37% (plurality of Americans identify as independent)
40% of independents (who respond) ID as “moderate” “ middle”
27% of all Americans (who respond) ID as “moderate” “middle”
23% ID as “liberal”
32% ID as “conservative”

20. Change since 1974 More GOP conservatives in Congress
More liberal Democrats in Congress
Fewer Democrats and Republicans in the electorate
Polarization without partisans
Without meaningful political competition

21. Reform Goals 50 yrs ago: Build Responsible Parties
1950s, Problem: weak, incoherent parties,
lack of accountability
1950s Reform goals
Cohesive, ideologically distinct parties
Party unity in legislature
Greater party role in campaign finance
Closed nominations (no blanket primary)
Rank and file partisans select conv. delegates
Greater role of policy in (national) campaigns

22. Responsible Party Model
APSA report also noted:
End one party rule that renders elections
meaningless in much of nation
End electoral college that renders elections

23. Decline of Competition, US House 1898 - 2000
0.25
0.2
0.15
Proportion seats won with less than 5% margin
0.1
0.05
1940
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Proportion of House seats won by 5% or less

24. Incumbent Victory Margins: 1898 - 2000
0.5
0.4
0.3
DemMargin
GOPMargin
0.2
0.1
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year

25. Representation and Competition
Jan Dec 2006, by type of district. (109th Cong)

26. Party Discipline w/o Competition
High levels of cynicism about politics
43% agree, ‘people have no say’ in 2004
27% agreed ‘people have no say’ in 1960
56% agree ‘elected officials don’t care’ in 2004
25% agreed officials don’t care in 1960
Decline in turnout (?)

27. Are these trends related?
Parties are now much more cohesive:
Soft money, fundraising post BCRA
Congressional floor voting discipline
Party leaders (in Govt.) more power
Activists dominate presidential nominations
Politics, media more partisan, more polarized
Electoral competition often meaningless (swing, safe seats)
Fewer partisans, engagement with politics down

28. Public Views of Elections & Parties
Less than 1/3 support maintaining two party system
Few think that elections make government pay attention
Turnout stagnant (down in north) despite fewer barriers

29. Do Elections Matter?
Trends in responses to NES q; Do elections make govt pay attn?

30. Do Elections Matter? Growing cynicism & low efficacy about elections
Pre-dates 2000 election disaster
Pre-dates recently lobbying scandal
Unlikely to be affected by HAVA like reforms

31. Do Elections Matter How honest vote counting (% very dishonest, 2004):
US 23%
Venezuela 18%
Taiwan 16%
Mexico 13%
Philippines 12%
S Africa 8%
Bulgaria 8%
Slovakia 7%
Chile 6%
Russia 5%
PR, PO, JP, SW, SK, AU, GB
NE, CA, FN, NZ, NO lt 1%

32. What problem should election reforms target?
“faith in elections”
“public trust”
“have elections express will of the people”
engagement with representative democracy
participation
polarization w/o partisans, w/o competition

33. Make Elections Worth Stealing
Assume the ‘perfect’ election under HAVA - type reforms
polling places, early voting, registration….
Assume just one candidate has a chance to win ….
Will HAVA reforms affect anything?

34. Make Elections Worth Stealing
If you build it, they will come…
Electoral competition -> representation of ‘center’, median
Electoral competition -> alter composition of electorate
Electoral competition -> interest, learning, participation
Electoral competition -> accountability, change in govt.
Electoral competition -> over crowded polling locations,
more Florida 2000, cheating, etc.

35. Larger Questions How much should government & elections represent
those care the least about politics?
Will more competition make people upset?
How much does political apathy is due to the
dysfunctional aspects of institutions?
What reforms?