Polarization is the trend in which two parties usurp complete power within a political system, then pushing that power in two opposite ends of the spectrum. Sorting, a type of political polarization, can account for the trends in congressional polarization, but scholars often disagree about whether direct polarization or sorting affects Congress. While either of these polarization methods decreased moderates in Congress, these trends differ immensely from public polarization. Congressional polarization often obscures the role of moderates in the public because scholars cannot track public polarization trends as easily as congressional trends. Congressional trends often shift partisans further toward the radical left or right, despite this, …show more content…
moderates continue to persist in the public. A substantial piece of the public belongs to neither the Republican or Democratic camps. Because of moderates in the public becoming obscured by 'leaners,' some scholars believe that they exist as less radical partisans; these moderates vote on a less predictable basis. The trend of Congressional polarization causes moderates in the public to become ignored, therefore obscuring their importance to politics. Congressional polarization can easily be tracked unlike the polarization trends in the public which causes the moderates to become ignored.
According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp, which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But, Hill and Tausanovitch note that while tracking Congressional polarization may be easy, public polarization is more difficult. So, accounting for the 'swing vote' becomes difficult because accounting for public polarization at all is a daunting task (1068). The claim that diversity in moderates has been decreasing (Hill and Tausanovitch 1073) disagrees with recent polls; many moderates disagree with the extremist views of the right and left, rather they often fall somewhere in the middle on many key issues (Ball). Moderates in the public do not follow polarization or sorting as some scholars explain; they do not belong any party, but vote depending on the issues and can often decide the winner of major …show more content…
elections. The trend in congressional polarization overshadows the trends in public. While congressional moderates dissipate, moderates in the public “in the United States stands at its highest point in more than 75 years” according to polling (Smith). Many moderates ‘lean’ toward the left or right, which causes the first problem in many polarization studies. Polarization means that constituents disperse from the center of the line to either or right into political parties; they are not necessarily radical, but many of these ‘leaners’ continue to vote on an issue to issue basis (Enns and Schuldt). Congressional polarization differs immensely; this trend appears more as sorting where partisans move to more “extreme ideologies” (Hill and Tausanovitch 1060). Moderate ‘leaners’ very rarely hold party loyalty towards the party towards which they ‘lean’ rather their votes can easily be swayed by issues that find important; however, as Enns and Schuldt found in the last presidential election something as small as a candidate’s trustworthiness. But these moderates often sway public polarization statistics and studies despite their views not consistently staying right or left. The idea of moderate ‘leaners’ not only sways polarization studies, but also convinces many involved in politics that these key players no longer influence politics. Moderates hold a distinct importance on the political stage; they do not have loyalty to a political party and can vote for any candidate for any reason they decide. Moderate ‘leaners’ claim to align more closely with the right or the left, leaving very few neutral (Ball). Some scholars assume that these ‘leaners’ are simply less radical conservatives and liberals (a); however, they often just hold a majority of views aligning with the left or right but can swing either way. When they researched the most recent presidential election, Enns and Schuldt stumbled across the importance of both neutral moderates and ‘leaners’ in President Trump’s victory. Moderates were the deciding factor because many believed they would not vote in the election; when they did the moderates changed the predicted outcome (Enns and Schuldt). Rather than holding little influence in politics, moderates hold an important ‘swing vote’ because they can swing from party to party depending on which issues they find most important. Despite issues swaying moderates, the deciding factor between candidates can often be less obvious.
Unlike partisans, moderates can change their vote depending on any number of factors (Enns and Schuldt). But, the moderate 'leaner' can often take more convincing than more central moderates; this, however, does not mean they cannot be convinced to vote for the other party. Contrary to that belief, all moderates, even 'leaners' remain the 'swing vote' in an election; they can vote for either party whether they 'lean' toward a political party or not. These voters can change a predicted win into a loss by simply remaining without a party. Moderates stay a ‘swing vote’ during election such as in the last presidential election in which even moderates that ‘leaned’ left voted for President Trump (Enns and Schmidt). Anything can sway a vote for moderates; partisan loyalty does not hold their vote. Usually, the deciding that often sways moderates’ votes are singular or multiple issues. Because of a lack of a partisanship, moderates can view each side of an issue considering the virtues of every side before making their choice (Smith). By considering each issue this way, moderates may consider each candidate without bias. Rather than viewing partisanship, moderates analyze the candidates and issues which allow them to make an informed decision. How moderates vote contrasts with many who belong to a partisanship. Moderates vote to support issues they find important rather than voting
to favor a singular political party. Because of the trends in congressional polarization, moderates in the public become overshadowed. Dwarfing the number of moderates in the public obscures their importance to politics. Moderate ‘leaners’ are often a major cause of for public polarization research becoming skewed despite ‘leaners’ remaining an important ‘swing vote’ in many elections. All moderates, even ‘leaners,’ vote according to their own set of standards, whether it is an issue important to them or something less definable. But, congressional polarization makes it appears the public must follow a similar path, despite moderates in Congress diminishing. Polarization research of both Congress and the public suggest moderates decrease across the entirety of the United States; however, in recent years, moderates have significantly affected major elections.
Furthermore, he introduces the idea that popular polarization is different from partisan polarization and that sorting has occurred within the parties. Meaning that “those who affiliate with a party… are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically ‘correct’ party than they were [before]” (Fiorina et al. 61). To illustrate the concept of polarization he uses a figure with marble filled urns. These urns depict red blue and gray marbles with r for republican d for democrat and i for independent. When polarization, all gray independent marbles disappear becoming either red or blue.
Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government, which results in the election of polarized candidates and policies.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
In Sinclair’s analysis, voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant roles in creating and enforcing the ideological gap between the two major parties in Congress. This trend of polarization is rooted in the electorate
In the United States of America, there are a number of national issues that go unresolved and become more of a major issue subsequently. The lack of resolution in some of our nation’s most critical issues is due to the lack of a common ground between opposing political parties. Issues such as healthcare, climate change, abortion, same-sex marriage, taxes and welfare are reoccurring problems in the United States due to congressional gridlock. The cause of congressional gridlock can be attributed to the difference in liberal and conservative views, which can be further examined through some of the nation’s most prominent reoccurring issues such as immigration and gun control.
Whether political polarization is good or bad for the nation is still up for debate, but the general consensus is it exists due to a variety of reasons. From the construction of our Constitution, it is clear that the intent of our founding fathers was to create opposition in order to prevent tyranny from prevailing. Polarization is a result of the dividing of a nation into political parties. Though polarization has fluctuated throughout the years, it has caused a great deal of trouble in regards to passing legislation and has resulted in a gridlocked Congress. Even though some fear congressional polarization is destined to get worse, “it is mathematically impossible for congress to get much more polarized” than it is now.
Did you know that in order for a bill to become a law it must go through the house of representatives and Senators?The house of representatives and the senators are alike in many different ways.Congress has many different roles that they do for example a role that they have to do are when someone make a bill that wants to be passed it first has to be introduced to congress then the congressmen discusses it out then pass it to the president.Another role congress has is that they have the power to declare war and make laws.
Theodore Rosenhof phrases realignment as a theory that suggests an overall shift in partisan dominance as a result of a shift in the way voters align themselves (2). Realignment can be centered around a critical election, in which the shift in power transpires rapidly over the course of one election (Thomas Ferguson, 407). However, realignment can also transpire slowly, occurring over a period of many elections. The realignment theory is comprised of various characteristics that determines whether an election is critical or not. It is important to note that although realignment is comprised of characteristics, some of these characteristics will be evident in one election but not in another. For a better understanding, of the characteristics that define realignment, this essay will firstly use a specific case study that emphasizes the attributes required for a critical election and secondly apply these characteristics to the current 2016 elections to determine whether a realigning election is being
TerBeek, Calvin. “’Swing’ voters are still partisan.” Chicago Turbine. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
Political Divide in the United States The political divide in the United States is very bad. The two main political parties are the democrats and the republicans. The two parties dislike each other and each other's views. Abortion is something that has been talked about a lot, some people find it good and others find it as a bad thing. Health care is another issue that is controversial. Another big issue is illegal immigration. The death penalty and euthanasia are also reasons the government is divided. The topic of the right to bear arms is also very controversial, especially with all the murders and riots going on. Global warming, even though it does not seem very political, is a topic that comes up a lot in political speeches and events. And lastly, the separation of church and state is another topic that gets in heated discussions in politics. Not all of these seem like they are political, but they have been made into be, even though they should not have, the United States is divided over them. The political parties have caused the country to be divided. Democrats and Republicans, also known as liberals and conservatives, most people do
In today’s political world, bipartisanship has become nothing more than something that comes up once in a while within congress; it is something that people either agree with or don’t. This essay will include what bipartisanship is, how it works, and the good things it has accomplished.
Dual Nature of Congress The authors of the Constitution could not have foreseen the institution which they created. Congress has become an institution that is dictated by parliamentarian procedures and rules, as well as a series of norms and traditions that are difficult for the outside world to comprehend. Members find themselves trying to represent their diverse constituencies in a world of rapidly changing political and social beliefs, while caught in an institution bound by complexity and rules. To the American people, this creates an atmosphere of a ‘do nothing’ Congress that is consistently delayed by inaction and confusion.