Partisanship: An Expository Essay
Michael A. Pitts
Pols 227 – Dr. Kaplan
Partisanship: An Expository Essay
Construction of a Downsian Interpretation of Partisanship
According to Downs (1957), the partisanship is correlated to multiple factors associated with the public, approach to a multi-party system, and ideologies of both the people and the parties that act as politicians conduits to elected offices. Downs’ (1957) first stipulation have to have a great degree of agreement in their consensus if a two party system is to succeed, which means that a two party system is dependent on people agreeing on what they want, and those parties have to pick on the aspects they use in their policies. In agreement with the Downsian interpretation, it is clear that, since a representative government involves representation of the needs, perceptions and expectations of the populous, a two party system is most stable in cases where people agree on most things, and parties only have to identify the aspects of the agreements to include in their policies. In cases where people are diverse in their political ideologies, more than two parties are necessary to reflect the perspectives of these extra groups, and a two-party system would be insufficient. Another stipulation of the Downsian interpretation is that two party systems result in increased similarities between the parties while systems with more than two parties result in increased diversity (Downs, 1957). In this case, it is
In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s
differences between their parties and policies. Although there are similarities between the parties, they tend to be overshadowed by individual party ideologies. With so many fundamental differences between the parties, finding topics or issues upon which constituents agree upon can at times be somewhat difficult. Although there are chasms between the voting practices of the parties, there are also some fundamental similarities as well.
A two party system is strong and influential although it allows lesser parties to exist and have an influence. As a result a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of the lesser parties are possible. These systems can also be multi-party systems. The Two-party sytem has advantages and disadvantages they consist of: Advantages,: It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth, two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simple to govern, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to parliament. The disadvantages: Two-party systems have been criticized extreme views, and putting a second opinion on debate within a nation, two-party systems for fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot, the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren’t being voiced by the major parties." Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions. I think having a two-party system is ideal because neither major party is strong enough to win without bringing up specific topics that they believe in or their ideology of their party. The way the Republicans and Democrats present
In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.
Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.
The United States has maintained its two party system for some time, but the major parties have not always been so clearly separated. In the early and mid-twentieth century, polarization was actually declining, as there was much ideological overlap between the members of the two parties (Kuo). Many people, such as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, rested in the ideological middle. Additionally, each party represented a coalition of diverse interests. At
In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year's election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.
In 1789, the U.S. did not have a two-party system. The two-party system is rooted in the beginnings of the nation itself. The Framers of the Constitution were opposed to political parties. The ratification of the Constitution saw the birth of America's first two parties: the federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti-Federalists, who followed Thomas Jefferson. The nation had only had George Washington, who was President without a party at that time. During George Washington’s two terms, a conflict developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were both Federalists men. Jefferson challenged Adams under the umbrella of the Democratic - Republican Party. In addition, the Democratic - Republican Party was the first real party that contained the formal beginnings of the present day two-party system. The word Democratic infers to “will of the people”, the word Republican infers to “rule of law” which is defense from possible oppression of the majority. In short, the American party system began as a two-party system. In this essay I will be discussing the why America needs a two-party system, why a multi-system may work for the nation and the conflicts, and how does this political system contributes to the nation and why a two-system is worth the struggle.
The two-party system needs to be changed or completely abolished, because it offers limited ideas and opinions to run the country. The two parties have their own perspectives on issues such as gun control or abortion; Craig Goodman of the University of Houston claims he“doesn’t think it’s very democratic. Why should you exclude someone because they are a small number, and they don’t get to express themselves?” (Cargo 1). The two-party does not allow the middle ground or smaller parties to really have a say (Mathias 4). Most voters only know the leading independent and the two party nominees. Kate Cargo describes “the two-party system leaves voter with low-quality ideas and frankly, low-quality candidates” (Cargo 1) while the third party candidate could have a great compromise on a hot issue, it will never see the light of day. While the two-party system does allow people to have easy access to the opinions of the parties on these issues, it does not make up for the limited options we have. As a country we need to have as many options as possible even if they are extreme. Accessibility is important, but it should never limit our options.
Sometimes this takes the form of wooing legislators, including legislators of another political party or ideological persuasion. When polarization and partisanship make such wooing hard if not impossible, that same ambition is likely to take the form of aiding the election of candidates who can be counted on to support one's
A political two party system is one where two parties have complete dominance over voting, in terms of seats and the general vote. The multi- party system however describes a system where more than two parties have the ability to win role as government. In this essay I will give a balanced argument on whether Britain is a two party, or multi- party system.
In the United States, we have a majority rule type of system where only one person represents an entire district of people. This system is extremely pluralized, which means that people will favor either extreme on the view of an issue. Due to these reasons, only two parties can coexist, and it is difficult for a third party to gain favor in the masses, which is Duverger’s Law. In the history of the United States, there has usually been two political parties that represented the views of the masses. Each of these parties had a certain way that they believed about the major issues of the time that were brought up or could be influenced by the government. The reason that only two parties have ever been able to establish themselves in government is because of the majority ruled system that our government has, and the love people have for having a definite answer rather than an indefinite one.
The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority of political offices and, with less bickering between differing and partisan legislators, govern more efficiently. In a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a political majority. The weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. The stability shown by the government of the United States has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong constitutional position of the president, as well as checks and balances built into the constitution to prevent one branch of federal government from becoming too powerful.
The United States government is commonly referred to as a “Duopoly”, which means that there are two established political parties, Democratic and Republic, and that these two parties share the vast majority of the political power in the country. This is because the United States follows a winner-takes-all voting system, utilizing a “single-member district plurality”. The “single-member district” portion means that for each geographic area or district, there is only one elected official, and the “plurality” portion means that in United States elections, the representative or politician who receives the most number of votes, wins the given election, even if it’s less than half the percentage of votes. According to Duverger’s law, a Political Science principle, plurality voting procedures correlationally support the emergence of only two political parties, in contrast to a multiparty democracy.
There are many theories as to how or why political polarization was formed, and the impact it has on government in modern day. Polarization has varied significantly over the years ever since the 1970’s. However, what is the true cause and can it be explained? This paper will discuss some theories on how political polarization came about, and analyzes some accounts of polarization overall. Defining political polarization is vital into developing an understanding of how or why it was initially formed.