Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influence on public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
Democrat v republican compare and contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Media influence on public opinion
Party identification is the political party that an individual categorizes them self with. Political parties came about as a way to organize citizens with similar beliefs and attitudes. These parties then attempt to influence the government by electing members into office. Today there are two main parties people can identify: Republican and Democrat. There is also a third choice, being an Independent, but for the purpose of this paper this group will not be recognized as a political party. These reasons will be discussed later. There are many different theories as to why people do or do not identify with a political party, including social psychology, issue related, and psychological attachments. I believe the social psychology theory has the right idea. Sociology is about studying human society and how it develops and functions. So, it makes sense that social factors would have a big impact on whether we identify with a political party or not.
With my comment earlier about independent voters, there are a few reasons they shouldn't count as a political party for this paper. First, they have too many different views to find a common identity. Both Republicans and Democrats have a basic set of beliefs and attitudes that make them who they are. Independents are a mix of individuals that have different attitudes, beliefs, positions, etc,. There's no real common goal between Independents. Second, majority of Independents tend to be biased towards one party or the other. "When you narrow it down, look at actual voters, the turnout rate among independents is lower. When you look at actual voters and look at those who are truly uncommitted, you find that you’re down to less than 10 percent of the actual voters (Khan, 2012)....
... middle of paper ...
...tion. American Journal of Political Science, 970-988.
Oakes, P., Alexander, H., & John, T. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Blackwell Publishing.
Perez-Pena, R. (2013, July 25). College Enrollment Falls as Economy Recovers. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/education/in-a-recovering-economy-a-decline-in-college-enrollment.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Pratt, M. (1997). To be Or Not to Be?: Central Questions in Organizational Identification. Sage Publications.
Sides, J. (2014, January 8). Most political independents actually aren't. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/08/most-political-independents-actually-arent/
Tajifel, H. a. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
Fairlie, Henry. The Parties: Republicans and Democrats in This Century. New York: The New Republic Magazine, 1978.
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
Millions of citizens around the United States, at some point in their lifetime, obtain a political ideology. Typically, their political values are influenced by their parents. Political scientists have identified that around age eleven, children begin to develop political opinion. According to Wilson’s, American Government: Institutions and Policies, 91% of a high school senior class indentified with the same party as their parents (American Government 158). I can attest to this since I in fact have the same party association as my parents. Ever since I was young, I categorized myself as a Democrat due to the fact that my elders were. However, as I have matured I am able to recognize the beliefs and ideologies that followers of certain parties possess. Since I have been more exposed to the political arena I am able analyze the issues more critically and hence I continuously question whether I should classify myself as a Democrat or Republican.
Cleavages existing in society are divisions such as religion, gender, race, and most importantly socioeconomic status. Political parties form around these divisions in society and in America’s society; money has proven to be the major factor. The major parties in American politics are Democrat and Republican, and the political preference of each member of these parties’ deals greatly with the amount of income they receive.
Political ideology holds an important place when determining what to consider yourself as. The Republican Party holds a vision that is established on American traditions of family, community, and
TerBeek, Calvin. “’Swing’ voters are still partisan.” Chicago Turbine. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
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.
Overtime political scientist and researchers have gathered information dealing with voting behaviors and trends. The analysis of those factors have pointed to the importance of income, race, education, religion and parental influence on party identification. In this literature the focus will solely be on the effects of income, race and education on political party identification.
Both categories of identity play into how an individual classifies him/herself as independent or interdependent. Self-stereo typing is also used to establish identity and find a specific group one can be associated with. “The [stereotypes] describe the typical characteristic of people in various social groups. They also include information about how a group is different from other groups.” This resurfaces the idea of us versus them. Groups end up in conflict due to their divergent characteristics and differences. After forming an identity, of course an individual will only want to protect their individualistic identity and collective identity to create a complete image of self. If this sense of self is challenged, an individual will often turn to a group seeking reassurance. Individuals are the building blocks of groups and multiple facets that should be considered when analyzing group
In the presidential primaries, closed primary voters tend to be seen more extreme than the voters in the open primary. Voters in a closed primary can only vote for the party they have registered themselves as through the voter’s registration form they are required to fill out before they are even eligible to vote. Norrander states that more independents vote in the open primaries rather than the closed primaries, unlike the republicans and democrats, because of the rules and party identification. In the states that conduct the primaries using party identification laws were seen to have more party members and few independents. In a survey, Norrander found that the higher level of voters who claimed to be independents were in the states that had either semi-closed primaries or open primaries. The fewest amount of independent voters was found in the semi-open and closed primary
Hogg, M., & van Knippenberg D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 35, 1-52.
Some of the strengths of the social identity theory are that; throughout the years it has supported many empirical studies, it has also demonstrated the social categorization in intergroup behaviors, allowed us to differentiate between social and personal identities and has provide explanations for other areas of psychology (conformity). A weaknesses of the Social identity theory is that its application is restricted in the sense that it has very low ecological validity. Another weakness is that SIT favors situational factors rather than dispositional is not supported by evidence. The social Identity theory can be used to how to explain how we form our social and personal identities in the terms of in and out groups. SIT can also be used to explain why there is conflict between humans and different societies.
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
In all aspects of their lives we associate with various groups, for example demographic, cultural or peer groups. Social Identity theory developed by Henri Tajfel in 1979 explains how people develop a sense of belonging and membership in particular groups. This theory explains behaviors in terms of social groups, we form social groups and create perceptions of others and ourselves that are influenced by the various groups to which we belong. A social group is a set of individuals who hold a common social identification or view themselves as members of the same social category (Chen & Li, 2009). Individuals can have multiple, co-occurring identities which could vary. This paper aims to explain how the Social Identity theory is used to explain violence and prejudice behavior and it also looks at the advantages and disadvantages of this theory compared to other theories in explaining the same behavior.
Whether one is part of a group – specifically a party – or not, both have important implications. First being a member of a party indicates the relationship between one’s policy preferences and partisanship. Second, deciding not to be a part of group indicates a strong exposition of as to why one chooses to do so. These will be discussed in this paper.