The terms “secular shift” and “critical realignment” both seek to explain the abrupt and gradual changes in American voting patterns and the two major party’s unique political positions. Both shifts occur at different rates, are formed by different variables unique to the current national economic and political conditions at the time, and lead to new party developments. Critical realignments alter party loyalty or bring about the emergence of a newly shaped version of a major party; their outcomes change the future political landscape and the makeup of a party’s coalition. Critical realignments mobilize new voters through their take on new developing issues and can create a new mold of a major party. In addition, critical realignments may develop under the creation of a third party to spark the emergence of new political issues for a major party to acknowledge and shift towards to garner that support. Secular shifts and critical realignments contrast in causes, outcomes, and are influenced by …show more content…
different factors. Secular shifts do not take place overnight, but rather develop policy changes over time in a manner that is contrary to a party’s original agenda. In contrast to critical realignment shifts, third parties only play a minor role in these new changes, as it is difficult for any significant third party impact over such an extended period of time. Secular shifts occur when opinions change over time in response to a change in an individual’s circumstances. For example, a group of voters become wealthy over time and in turn support the party with the policies that best benefit their circumstances. Secular shifts also include changes in major party turnout caused by demographic changes, such as migration or high birth rates. Critical realignment is more of an abrupt change; it marks a “sharp alteration of the pre-existing cleavage within the electorate” through a remobilization of conflict and dramatic agenda change due to cultural shifts (Mayhew, 450). Contrary to secular shifts, third parties play a large role in how these new boundaries are accepted. There are realigning and non-realigning national elections, most critical realignments are based off of presidential elections that are fundamental turning points in American electoral politics and a major party’s identity. Critical realignments are characterized by high voter turnout because of the intensity over the outcome of a certain issue or candidate. For this reason, it is important for parties to mobilize as many new voters as possible as such a competitive race will lead to ideological polarization on both sides (Mayhew, 454). New voter cleavage comes to replace the old after realignment; new issues will reach the surface and attract potential party converts. Electoral realignments are closely related to the introduction of new major policy issues because of the strong backing for change when they take place. For example, the 1932 major policy shifts under the New Deal transformed the Democratic Party, mobilizing the once loyal Republicans to vote Democrat. Shifts in major party voting occurs when people are desperate for change, like Republicans crossing party lines to implement a support system provided by the New Deal desperate under the poor national economic conditions; redistributive policies can act as “the heart of critical-realignment periods” (Mayhew, 455). Electoral realignments have appeared in patterns of regular intervals with causes that can be traced back to discontent with the performance of the two parties. The historical pattern of critical realignment suggests it emerges from “cataclysmic events such as a depression or social change, generational change, or the mobilization of new voters” (Mayhew, 450). In effect, voters will act out through the nomination of a candidate who is willing to re-shape major party efforts in the hopes of capturing their vote. Again, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did just this in 1932 as the Democratic Party reemerged with the New Deal coalition after a period of economic depression. According to Burnham, the dynamic pattern in and out of a realignment begins with “’political stress’ or ‘tension’ built up over a period of roughly 30 years until it reaches a ‘boiling point’ at which time a ‘triggering event’ brings on an electoral realignment”, although the events leading up to it may have gone unnoticed (Mayhew, 453). It may be argued that this 30 year time period is just a coincidence, but it is no surprise that the path of critical realignment begins when political institutions ignore or are unaware of certain public concerns or demands until it’s too late. The nomination of Bryan in 1896 was in response to the unmet economic needs, political stagnation, the focus on “dead issues of the past”, and a failure of the two major parties to address needs of the voters (Mayhew, 453). Bryan responded to the unanswered questions and addressed the insecurities of the nation after a period of strong stagnation and political isolation between voters concerns and government action, leading to the realignment of the Democratic Party. If the party in power is not in touch with the wants and needs of the people then they may overlook problems that they are unaware of leading to loss of party loyalty and the potential for another party to pick up their support. Third parties serve as a strong catalyst for critical realignment in times of growing “distance between the positions of a citizen and the major party candidates” (Rosenstone et al, 42). Strong third party support indicates possible realignment developments because of their known role in “redefining the political cleavages that divide the major parties” (Herrnson, 13). Prior to realignment, a party may not address a major issue because they have not taken up a strong position before on it or they have not evolved for the present concerns of the American public; third party support serves as way to make these concerns known. Third parties drive major party changes by bringing up issues of concern that, if felt deeply enough, can shift the party’s supporters. Major parties may take up new issues that do not resonate with their prior base, leading to possible changes in voting patterns from both parties. When minor parties attempt at challenging the two parties they rarely stand a chance for electoral victory, however they the essential outlet needed for those who do not agree with the major party platform. New parties are not necessarily formed with any realistic expectation of winning the presidential seat. Instead, many third parties act as “promoter” parties that “recognize the unlikelihood of winning many votes or sets, but whose major objective is to use the party as a vehicle for bringing attention to a particular issue or cause” and are fundamental for changing the status quo (Harmel, 37). If new parties reflect the dominant cleavage of a party system other parties may be inspired to take up the issues that resonate with the people leading to new party realignments, but until then they act as the “half-way house”. Voting third party is seen as the “path of last resort” because the likelihood of their victory is so slim that “severe deterioration of major parties must take place before significant third party activity occurs” (Rosenstone et al, 26). Third party voting is a sign of discontent in the two major political parties and acts as an effort to signal any existing “ideological holes unfilled by a major party candidate” ((Rosenstone et al, 28). When the two major parties fail to address concerns of the public they retaliate through third party voting mobilization such as in 1896 when Bryan ran to close the ties that neither party would address in an effort to win back those who would otherwise vote third party in dissatisfaction with their “choices”. Electoral rules further enforce the perpetual existence of a two-party dominated political system.
Plurality voting and winner-take-all rules directly undermine any chance of a third party victory, leading to the perpetual existence of a two-party political system. With winner-take-all election rules making any third party victory far from possible, the two major parties can shift their identity early on in the election to align better with the concerns of the general public that may be expressed from third party support. Third parties do not pose much of a threat to the two major parties due to their inability to carry a state through electoral votes. Any large desire for policy change will likely provoke a major party critical realignment before it leads to any third party victory. The two major parties will likely, based off of historical patterns, bring forth a candidate whose campaign is unique to the nation-wide concerns, leading to a shift in overall voting
behavior. It is important to understand the circumstances under which critical realignment occurs in order to predict future shifts in major party followings. Critical realignments take place when the people are discontent with the performance of the two major parties or if there is a need for change in the two-party political landscape that is shaping the nation in ways people may not approve of. Critical realignments may be recognized through the support of third parties or the mobilization of new voters caused by new national concerns leading to the change in major party stances. If the party in power is not in touch with the wants and needs of the people then they may overlook problems that another major party addresses. A party may not address a major issue because they have not taken up a strong position before on it or they have not evolved under the present concerns of the American public. Following any critical realignment are drastic shifts in voting patterns caused by the ideological change that can attract a whole new base of voters who were once unconcerned with election results and are now passionate under a newly aligned major party that is now pulling a base larger than before.
In closing, this book informs us on how the Republicans went crazy and Democrats became useless, and how it’s become a problem. The books unfolds the faults of the Republicans and Democrats “behind the scenes”, and made me more aware of the parties today.
...mographic change has forced a transformation in the political world because both of the two major political parties have an incentive to court this population since their success in doing so will play a tremendous role in their ability to win future elections.
The two party system has encouraged the idea that voting for anyone who is not ‘blue’ or ‘red’ is a wasted vote. This can be seen in the lack of votes that 3rd party candidates are getting, for example in 2012 between the three third party candidates there was a total of 1,570,767 votes.(IVN) This could be because only a little more than half of the voting age population actually voted. (GMU) Or it could be to the lack of media coverage that they get. Third party candidates, or any candidate for that matter need to get at least 5% of the vote in a general election to get equal ballot access and federal funding like the two big parties. Another reason this idea of a wasted vote comes through is because no one knows what these other parties stand for they just hear what people on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News say about them. For instance the libertarian party has been deemed nothing more than a bunch of pot smoking hippies just because they want to legalize marijuana. The big media outlets don’t look at the party as a whole and find one unpopular opinion they have and bash it into the skulls of their viewers as the truth.
In the presidential elections of 1980 and 1992, in both cases, the third party received a good amount of popular vote (Doc B). This should mean that they should receive electoral votes. But that’s not the case. This shows a dominance of our 2-party system. Even bet...
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
On the United States electoral map, it has always been known that Democratic and Republican political parties stand by their foundational policies and operating principles. The central dogma of the two political parties has strictly been adhered to, with the Democrats regarded as the conservative party while Republicans the liberal party (Kornhauser, 2013). However, an in-depth analysis of the political realignments suggests that a historical reversal role has taken effect as evidenced by the long transition of the parties’ founding principles. The role of the historical reversal system in creating the flips forms the basis of this paper. A retrospective analysis of the parties' foundational policies reveals a firm political ground between the two.
To conclude, third party political organizations offer a different perspective to look at some of the nation’s leading issues. By analyzing these topics outside of the status quo dominant political parties, one can gain a fuller understanding of how to solve the issue at hand. The Constitutional and the Libertarian Party help contribute to an overall sense of America’s issues and some of the possible solutions.
According to V.O. Key he states that there are “trends that perhaps persist over decades” (page 1) he feels that these trends will make way for new party processes and decay of old processes. Key believes Secular Realignment is shown through out a various number of elections, whereas critical realignment is set to bring in new voters, new issues and alter voter alignments. According to Key Secular realignment is the best option to follow for a few simple factors. This type of alignment allows for a slow rate of change seeing as how the party process seems to have issues with change in general this would allow for an easy adjustment. Key also feels that with a secular realignment this would take the common tendency of parties for attachments to issues, candidates, leaders and so on. This will force them to change their way of thinking however slow it may be, it will over all change the political culture at a rate that is slower and more acceptable.
There is much debate in the United States regarding whether there is polarization between our two dominant 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. 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.
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.
When analyzed the past 40 years, it’s noticeable that the most significant trend was marked by the movement of the Republican Party to the right . This change of the Republican Party has influenced Southern and non-Southern members. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party change to the left was marked mostly by economic
As of 2017, it seems that our beloved nation is more divided than ever. Near-opposite political parties have turned our country against each other while developing more idealistic, extreme views on how to run this country. These opposing political parties dates back to our founding fathers, who created these political parties in benefit of our country. However, the parties only created division and competition, resulting in worse than good.
The United States government currently has a two-party voting system. One party holds a majority of power in an area of Congress and the other party has a minority. In America’s administration the two groups that effectively control the system are the Republican and Democratic parties. The two-party system has been known to deter changes from the creation of policies that go against the particular party’s viewpoints. There has been no deviation from the regular Republican and Democratic approaches towards politics. American voters have only two parties they can pick between for a fair chance at winning an election and that simply is not a democracy. Third-parties are crucial to our nation’s success in
Polarization in American politics may seem like a new phenomenon in American political elections, but has existed historically in nearly all elections. Republicans clashing with Democrats to gain control over the house of representatives, the senate, and the White house has always been both parties political objectives. The problem America has now with polarization comes from the American electorate which are becoming more divided in recent years at staggering rates compared to past elections. Political scientist upheld the centrist, theory which states that America was largely made of political moderates who didn’t resonate with neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Unfortunately, America is a nation divided between liberal
Most democratic countries have more than one political party, but The United States seems to still have just two dominating ones. Minor parties have always have a tough time trying making it onto ballots, being recognized on a grand scale like democrats and republicans, or even making it to the white house. While there are some advantages to having a two-party system such as simplicity, There seems to be more disadvantages that comes with it such as the self-perpetuating cycle that allows the two parties to continuously reign over all others.