Political Parties

Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates Organizing a Complex Government Educating Citizens Promoting Civic Participation

Why parties?

Timeframe Dominant Opposing1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps.1829-1856 Democrats Whigs1857-1892 Republicans Democrats1893-1932 Republicans Democrats1933-1968 Democrats Republicans1969-now ---Democrats/Republicans---

Party Systems

Why two parties? Why no dominance?

Questions

Why two parties???

Duverger’s Law◦ Plurality voting systems

Fusion Elimination

Why two parties???

Alternative?◦ Proportional Representation

Why two parties???

PR allows small parties to win seats

Why two parties???

Can still influence elections

Third Parties

Ralph Nader (2000, Green Party) Results

◦ Bush 47.9% (271 electoral votes)◦ Gore 48.4% (266 electoral votes)◦ Nader2.7% (0 electoral votes)

Was Nader a spoiler?

Third Parties

97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that

25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained

Nader a spoiler?

97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that

25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained

◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush

Nader a spoiler?

97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that

25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained

◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush

◦ Also…don’t forget uncounted military ballots!

Nader a spoiler?

No recount in Gore victories in◦ New Mexico (Gore won by .06%)◦ Wisconsin (.22%)◦ Iowa (.31%)◦ Oregon (.44%)

Numerous irregularities reported in Wisconsin State law guarantees right to recount if <.5%

Other notes on 2000

Ross Perot (1992, independent) Results

◦ Clinton 43% (370 electoral votes)◦ Bush 38% (168 electoral votes)◦ Perot 19% (0 electoral votes)

Third Parties

1992 Outcome

Third Parties

Perot voters…(without Perot running)◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton◦ 38% would have voted for Bush◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted

A spoiler?

Perot voters…(without Perot running)◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton◦ 38% would have voted for Bush◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted

◦ Or spoiled… 36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he

had a chance

A spoiler?

End of the “New Deal Coalition” Secret Ballot Primaries Merit System

Why no dominant party?

Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party) Results

◦ Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes)◦ Dole 41% (159 electoral votes)◦ Perot 8% (0 electoral votes)

Third Parties

Run-off elections

Two solutions…

Run-off elections

Two solutions…

Run-off elections

Two solutions…

Run-off elections Preference Voting

Two solutions…

Run-off elections Preference Voting

◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election)First Preference Final

Robinson 39% Lenihan 44% Currie 17%

Two solutions…

Run-off elections Preference Voting

◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election)First Preference Final

Robinson 39% 52% Lenihan 44% 46% Currie 17%

Two solutions…

Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?

Two solutions