1. C HAPTER 3

2. Characteristics of the American Party System The United States was the first nation to develop modern political parties that aligned the electorate around national issues and organized at the national, regional, and local levels to nominate candidates, contest elections, and organize governments  The peculiar combination of certain characteristics has made the American party system distinctive -two-party competition with variations -decentralized power structures -broadly based electoral support -nonprogrammatic parties -quasi-public institutions with ambiguous membership

3. Two-Party Competition with Variations The phrase two-party competition masks some of the variation in the extent and nature of interparty competition in the United States Party Competition at the National Level  presidential elections are highly competitive, with Republican and Democratic candidates alternating

4. Table 3.1. Major-Party Dominance of Presidential Voting, 1948-2004 Candidates for PresidentPercentage of Popular Vote YearRepublicanDemocratRepublicanDemocratTotal 1948DeweyTruman45.149.694.7 1952EisenhowerStevenson55.144.499.5 1956EisenhowerStevenson57.442.099.4 1960NixonKennedy49.549.799.2 1964GoldwaterJohnson38.561.199.6 1968NixonHumphrey43.442.786.1 1972NixonMcGovern60.737.598.2 1976FordCarter48.050.198.1 1980ReaganCarter50.741.091.7 1984ReaganMondale58.840.699.4 1988BushDukakis53.445.699.0 1992BushClinton37.443.080.4 1996DoleClinton40.749.289.9 2000BushGore47.948.496.3 2004BushKerry50.748.399.0 Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000, p. 273; Federal Election Commission data.

5. Two-Party Competition with Variations The phrase two-party competition masks some of the variation in the extent and nature of interparty competition in the United States Party Competition at the National Level  presidential elections are highly competitive, with Republican and Democratic candidates alternating  although the Democrats controlled Congress during most of the post-World War II era, congressional, and particularly House elections show a high level of competition and two-party dominance

6. Two-Party Competition with Variations Party Competition at the State Level  In recent years, a majority of states can be considered competitive at the state level, when taking gubernatorial and state legislative elections into consideration  States have become more competitive, as no states can be classified as one-party Republican or Democratic in recent years, whereas a majority of states were either one-party states or modified one- party states in the 1960s and 1970s

7. Figure 3.1. Interparty Competition in the United States, 1962-1973 and 1999-2003 Note: Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan, so it is not classified here. Source: John F. Bibby and Thomas M. Holbrook, “Parties and Elections,” in Politics in the American States, eds. Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson, (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press 2004). 1962-1973 1999-2003 One-Party Democratic Modified One-Party Democratic Two-PartyModified One-Party Republican

8. Two-Party Competition with Variations Variation in Levels of Competition for Different Offices  There is substantial evidence of a high level of interparty competition in most statewide elections (presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races)

9. Figure 3.2. Interparty Competition for the Presidency: Number of Times the Republican Presidential Nominee has Carried the State, 1968-2004 Times presidential nominee carried state 8-10 (21) 5-7 (19) 3-4 (6) 0-2 (5)

10. Table 3.2. Party Change in Control of Governorships, 1950-2000 DecadeNumber of Gubernatorial Elections Percent of Elections with a Party Change a 1950–195917423.6 (41) 1960–196915635.3 (55) 1970–197914438.9 (56) 1980–198912235.2 (43) 1990–199813535.6 (48) 2000119.1 (1) Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of party changes Source: Adapted from Larry Sabato, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie, 2 nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1983), pp. 120-121; the 1980-2000 data are derived from appropriate volumes of the Statistical Abstract of the United States; National Journal, November 11, 2000, p. 3622. a An election with a party change is defined as any election in which control of the governorship shifts from one party to another

11. Two-Party Competition with Variations Variation in Levels of Competition for Different Offices  There is substantial evidence of a high level of interparty competition in most statewide elections (presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races)  Interparty competition has been relatively rare in elections to the House of Representatives -Since 2000 more than 75% of seats were landslide wins -Usually more than 90% of incumbents win reelection  The absence of meaningful two-party competition is also common in many state legislative elections

12. Decentralized Power Structures Except for a few isolated urban machines, there is almost a total absence of hierarchical relationships within American parties The Impact of the Constitution  The separation of powers, or the creation of a national government composed of three branches, allows parties to target different races separately, thus disencouraging party unity  The federal structure of government has forced parties to develop a decentralized power structure

13. Decentralized Power Structures The Impact of Nomination and Campaign Practices  Elected officials gain nomination and election primarily through reliance on highly personalized campaign organizations Some Countertrends: Nationalizing Influences 1.The impact of national forces on state voting patterns 2.The expanded role played by national party organizations 3.The growth of national “presidential parties”

14. Broadly Based Electoral Support  In the United States party allegiances to not reflect social and economic cleavages  Instead partisan loyalties cut across social and economic divisions, resulting in parties that are broadly based coalitions of diverse and even conflicting elements  Because of this diversity, parties have difficulties maintaining unity among their elected officials  However, coalition-type parties do provide a means of reconciling and compromising conflicts within society

15. Nonprogrammatic Parties Programmatic parties have policy positions that “are part of a settled long-range program to which the party is dedicated in definite enough terms to mark it off prom rival parties” (Leon D. Epstein)  American parties’ policy positions tend to be more ad hoc in character and adopted to meet short-term problems or electoral circumstances  As a consequence, a substantial policy diversity exists within each party  The percentiles in table 3.3. shows displays Democratic liberalism scores and Republican conservatism scores in relation to party colleagues

16. Table 3.3. Ideological Diversity within the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S. Senate, 109 th Congress, 1 st Session, 2005 Liberal DemocratsPercentileMainstream DemocratsPercentileModerate DemocratsPercentile Kennedy, Edward (Mass.)96.7Wyden, Ron (Ore.)80.8Nelson, Bill (Fla.)66.2 Reed, Jack (R.I.)95.2Biden, Joseph (Del.)80.2Bingaman, Jeff (N.M.)66 Boxer, Barbara (Calif.)94.3Clinton, Hillary Rodham (N.Y.)79.8Lieberman, Joe (Conn.)65.7 Sarbanes, Paul (Md.)91Rockefeller IV, Jay (W.Va.)79.8Byrd, Robert (W.Va.)65.5 Lautenberg, Frank (N.J.)89.3Dodd, Christopher (Conn.)79.7Baucus, Max (Mont.)60.7 Harkin, Tom (Iowa)89.2Akaka, Daniel (Hawaii)78.8Salazar, Ken (Colo.)60.2 Durbin, Richard (Ill.)86.8Kohl, Herb (Wis.)78.8Pryor, Mark (Ark.)59.8 Kerry, John (Mass.)86.7Reid, Harry (Nev.)78.2Conrad, Kent (N.D.)59.7 Stabenow, Debbie (Mich.)86.3Schumer, Charles (N.Y.)77.8Landrieu, Mary (La.)58.3 Mikulski, Barbara (Md.)85.8Jeffords, James (Vt.)77.7Nelson, Ben (Neb.)49.7 Conservative RepublicansPercentileMainstream RepublicansPercentileModerate RepublicansPercentile Sessions, Jeff (Ala.)90.8Enzi, Michael (Wyo.)78.7McCain, John (Ariz.)59.2 Allard, Wayne (Colo.)90.8DeMint, Jim (S.C.)78.3Gregg, Judd (N.H.)58.5 Coburn, Tom (Okla.)90.8Bond, Christopher (Mo.)77.3DeWine, Mike (Ohio)55.5 Bunning, Jim (Ky.)89.2Crapo, Mike (Idaho)75.5Voinovich, George (Ohio)55.3 Lott, Trent (Miss.)88Grassley, Charles (Iowa)75.3Lugar, Richard (Ind.)52.8 Isakson, Johnny (Ga.)87Burr, Richard (N.C.)73.5Sununu, John (N.H.)52.8 Chambliss, Saxby (Ga.)86.7Alexander, Lamar (Tenn.)73.3Smith, Gordon (Ore.)50.2 Allen, George (Va.)85.8Burns, Conrad (Mont.)73Snowe, Olympia (Maine)47.3 McConnell, Mitch (Ky.)84.8Thune, John (S.D.)71.3Specter, Arlen (Pa.)46.8 Bennett, Robert (Utah)84.8Stevens, Ted (Alaska)71Collins, Susan (Maine)46.7 Source: “2005 Vote Ratings—Senate Ratings,” National Journal (February 25, 2006), pp. 48-51. A score of 90 means that a Senator is more liberal/conservative than 90% of the total Senate membership

17. Nonprogrammatic Parties  Another sign of the lack of party unity is the lack of party loyalty to implement presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)

18. Table 3.4. Support for President’s Position on Roll Call Votes by Members of the President’s Party in Congress, 1954-2005 Average Percent of Members of President’s Party Supporting His Position YearsPresidentPartyRepresentativesSenators 2001-2005BushRepublican8491 1993–2000ClintonDemocrat7686 1989–1992BushRepublican6977 1981–1988ReaganRepublican6879 1977–1980CarterDemocrat69 1974–1976FordRepublican7265 1969–1974NixonRepublican7363 1964–1968JohnsonDemocrat7181 1961–1963KennedyDemocrat7583 1954–1960EisenhowerRepublican8068 Source: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress, 1999-2000 (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2000), pp. 198-199; Congressional Quarterly Weekly.

19. Nonprogrammatic Parties  Another sign of the lack of party unity is the lack of party loyalty to implement presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)  Yet another way of the lack of party unity is the frequency with which Senators vote in opposition of the position of a president from the same party (Table 3.5.)

20. Table 3.5. Republican Senators Voting Most Frequently in Opposition to the President’s Position on Senate Roll Calls, and Democratic Senators Most Frequently Voting in Support of the President, 2005 Republicans Percent of Votes OpposedDemocrats Percent of Votes in Support Chafee (R.I.)44Nelson (Neb.)76 Collins (Maine)38Landrieu (La.)64 Snowe (Maine)33Pryor (Ark.)58 DeWine (Ohio)24Lincoln (Ark.)50 McCain (Ariz.)23Salazar (Colo.)49 Smith (Ore.)21Conrad (N.D.)48 Sununu (N.H.)19Nelson (Fla.)47 Gregg (N.H.)18Lieberman46 Craig (Idaho)18Johnson (S.D.)46 Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly, Jan. 6, 2006, p. 85.

21. Nonprogrammatic Parties  Another sign of the lack of party unity is the lack of party loyalty to implement presidential government policies (Table 3.4.)  Yet another way of the lack of party unity is the frequency with which Senators vote in opposition of the position of a president from the same party (Table 3.5.)  Given the lack of party unity in Congress, it is frequently necessary to form cross-party alliances to pass legislation  However, shifts in party control of the national government have resulted in major changes in public policy, due to differences in party platforms

22. Quasi-Public Institutions with Ambiguous Membership  In most democracies, political parties are considered private organizations which make and enforce their own rules concerning its activities  By contrast, American parties are quasi-public institutions that are heavily regulated by state laws  The extensive regulation of parties in such matters as membership, organization, leadership selection, nominations, and campaihn finance means that parties are not free to run their own internal affairs as they see fit