Political Parties and Perceptions of Election Fraud in the U.S.

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Beaulieu
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Election Fraud ◽  
The U.S

The Company They Keep

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum ◽  
Neal Devins
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Dominant Ideology ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

The United States of In-between

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Elizondo Griest
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
The U.S

The author concludes her exploration of the U.S. borderlands with a meditation on the concept of borderlines. They don’t just delineate countries. Political parties are highly adept at redrawing the lines of congressional districts with a legal magic that—at the ballot box—brings about “miracles” on par with La Virgen de Guadalupe (only nowhere near as hopeful). For a borderline is an injustice. It is a time-held method of partitioning the planet for the benefit of the elite. Fortunately, there are legions of activists, artists, and faith keepers out there, petitioning on humanity’s behalf, but they need serious reinforcement. For the greatest lesson in nepantla is that many borderlines needn’t exist at all.

A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels' Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Sabl
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

Which Party Elites Choose to Lead the Nomination Process?

2012 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
Strategic Incentives ◽  
Party Members ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Presidential Nominations

Even though political parties maintain control of presidential nominations, little is known about what leads individual party members to participate in the process. Party elites have a collective incentive to nominate an electorally viable and ideologically unifying candidate, and they also have personal, strategic incentives that may foster or prevent their participation in the nominating process. Using endorsement data on a subset of party elites—members of the U.S. House of Representatives—this article finds that individual members of the extended party are strategic with their decision to participate in or abstain from the nomination process.

The Dynamics of Structural Realignment

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 775-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Elaine Macdonald ◽  
George Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spatial Theory ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Congressional Behavior ◽  
The U.S

Governments render decisions on how resources and values are allocated in a society. In the United States, Congress is the institution in which most of the key allocating decisions are made. To the extent the U.S. political system is integrated, the coalitions that form around the issues debated in Congress should be reflected in the coalitions that support presidential candidates and those that support the major political parties. We formulate a spatial theory of political change in which new ideological cleavages appear in congressional behavior and presidential elections and gradually reorganize the mass party base. The theory leads us explicitly to consider the question of dealignment and to specify conditions under which the parties will lose support from voters.

Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Budge ◽  
Richard I. Hofferbert
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Federal Expenditure ◽  
The U.S

Political parties in the United States are usually regarded as too weak and decentralized, too much the prey of office-seeking politicians and special interests, to function effectively as programmatic., policy-effecting agents within the separation of powers. This has been taken as a serious flaw in the U.S. version of representative democracy, prompting cycles of proposed reform; criticisms of the existing set-up as a capitalistic sham; or alternative justifications of the system as pluralist rather than strictly party democracy. Our research challenges these assumptions by demonstrating the existence of strong links between postwar (1948–1985) election platforms and governmental outputs. Platforms' sentences, coded into one of 54 subject categories, are used as indicators of programmatic emphases and are related to corresponding federal expenditure shares. Resulting regression models demonstrate the full applicability of party mandate theory to the United States, and they operationalize its U.S. variants concretely.

scholarly journals Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress

Daedalus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 149 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-55
Author(s):  
Kira Sanbonmatsu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Social Roles ◽  
The United States ◽  
Women And Politics ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
Elective Office ◽  
Period Data ◽  
The U.S

Women's elective office-holding stands at an all-time high in the United States. Yet women are far from parity. This underrepresentation is surprising given that more women than men vote. Gender–as a feature of both society and politics–has always worked alongside race to determine which groups possess the formal and informal resources and opportunities critical for winning elective office. But how gender connects to office-holding is not fixed; instead, women's access to office has been shaped by changes in law, policy, and social roles, as well as the activities and strategies of social movement actors, political parties, and organizations. In the contemporary period, data from the Center for American Women and Politics reveal that while women are a growing share of Democratic officeholders, they are a declining share of Republican officeholders. Thus, in an era of heightened partisan polarization, women's situation as candidates increasingly depends on party.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document