Political Parties and the Electorate

Chapter 4

© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc.

Federalist 10: James Madison A well constructed Union will be able to break and control the

violence of factions Public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties Measures are often decided by the superior force of an

interested and overbearing majority A factious spirit has tainted our public administration with

unsteadiness and injustice A faction is a small or large number of citizens who are united

and act by some common impulse of passion or of interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or the community

Two methods of controlling its evil effects– Removing its causes (remedy worse than disease)– Controlling its effects (impractical)

Federalist 10: James Madison

Men have a propensity to fall into animosities Most common source of faction is unequal distribution of

property A landed interest grows up of necessity in a civilized nation The causes of faction cannot be removed but its effects can be

controlled: liberty and unequal distribution of land To secure the public good, a majority must be included in a

faction Neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an

adequate control A representative government should safeguard against the

plots of a few– There should be a minimum and maximum number of representatives to

make sure they will not be controlled by the few or that the number is so large that it allows for the confusion of a multitude

Party Government by E.E. Schattschneider

The Constitution had a dual attitude– Established a system of party tolerance– Created a governmental structure designed to make parties ineffective

In a republic, parties are tolerated but are invited to strangle themselves in the machinery of government

Founders were unaware of the benefits of parties as instruments of a popular government

It is wrong to assume that people have only conflicting interests In a democracy, the people move from controversy to

agreement to forgetfulness People have many interests, and interests compete with

interests Interests cannot be mobilized perfectly

The Party Model of Government

Background: The framers stressed the importance of limiting majority rule. The evil factions, i.e. parties and interest groups, had to be subdued by the national interest. In 18th-century terms, political parties and interests groups were to be looked at with apprehension since their goals were selfish by nature. Post-18th century proponents of democratic and party government support the belief in the rationality of man and discussion through the mechanism of political parties. They would argue that our weak party system is a major deficiency and barrier to effective democratic leadership.

Sir Ernest Barker-Reflections on Government, 1942

We have to discover a system of government which squares with, and is based upon, the free and full development of human personality-

The form of government we have to find is one which elicits and enlists--or at any rate is calculated to elicit and enlist, so far as is humanly possible-the thought, the will, and the general capacity of every member.

Nature of Discussion

It must be a government depending on mutual interchange of ideas, on mutual criticism of the ideas interchanged, and on the common and agreed choice of the idea which emerges triumphant from the ordeal of interchange and criticism.

Government by Discussion A system of government by discussion proceeds

through four main stages:

first of party,

next of the electorate,

then of parliament,

and finally of cabinet.

Party as a Stage in the Method of Discussion

The first stage is the formulation of the general issues of discussion.

This is itself achieved by a process of discussion within, and also between, political parties, which results in the construction, and also the ventilation, of different party programs.

Nature of Parties

Parties, in their origin and their nature, are voluntary groups which are freely formed in the area of social life; but since, in their ultimate issue, they present programs and candidates to the electorate, which is part of the political scheme, they also enter the area of political organization.

Party as a Bridge A party has thus a double nature or quality. It is,

we may say, a bridge, which rests at the one end on society and at the other on the State.

It is, we may also say in another metaphor, a conduit or sluice, by which the waters of social thought and discussion are brought to the wheels of political machinery and set to turn those wheels

Plurality of Parties There must necessarily be a plurality of parties.

A single party cannot provide the basis of a system of government by discussion.

Discussion is ended at once if only a single issue is formulated and a single program enunciated.

No Single Party

When the State not only regulates parties, but so regulates them that it abolishes all parties other than the single party of the 'people' or 'nation' or 'proletariat', it really abrogates the essence of party, and in that act it also abolishes any real activity of the other stages and organs of democracy.

Party Issues to Reflect Public Not Special Interests

The function of is to formulate issues, and to provide representatives of the issues formulated, for the discussion and choice of the electorate.

Since the issues are to be submitted to the general electorate, they must be issues capable of interesting the general electorate. They cannot be limited issues which affect only a section of electors

The Electorate: Its Selective and Instructive Powers

The second stage of discussion is the choice between party programs, and between the representatives of those programs, which is made by the electorate.

Electoral Choice When a party system, with a plurality of parties,

has done its work, the electorate is presented with different and yet similar issues-different, in that different lines of policy, in each of the various areas of the State's activity, are necessarily involved:

similar, in that the issues are of a similar general character, and in that they suppose a similar common interest.

Electorate Selects Programs [The electorate] discusses and decides, at the

moment of its choice, the selection of the representatives of programs; and therein and thereby, according to the selection of representatives which it makes, it also discusses and decides the selection of a program.

In a word, it primarily selects men; but by doing so it also selects a policy.

Electorate Instructs Parliament Secondly, in the act of 'handing on' to

parliament, [the electorate] discharges what we may call an instructive function.

It instructs the men, whom it has elected, to carry discussion to a further and finer point in a legislative assembly;

it instructs them to discuss the translation of the program, for which they stand and on which they have been elected, into a body of general rules, or laws, and thus to attain a further stage in the system of division of labour on which the whole process of discussion is based.

Parliament: Its Sovereignty and its Plurality

The third stage of discussion is parliament.

In the first stage, the programs have been formulated by debate in each party.

In the second, representatives of programs have been selected after debate by the electorate, and authorized by it to form a parliament for further debate, to be conducted in a particular form and for a particular purpose.

In the third stage this parliament is assembled and sets to work at its function.

Purpose of Parliament Selected by the electorate, and authorized or instructed

by it, in general terms, for a particular purpose, [parliament] exists for the due discharge of its purpose.

The purpose is that of translating the program endorsed by the electorate into rules of law, so far as it can be run into the mould of law,

and, for the rest, of controlling the spirit in which the executive government acts (whether in enforcing rules of law, or in exercising the discretionary authority which lies outside the area of rules) in order that it may conform with the general trend of the programme.

Parliament Guides GovernmentA parliament exists in order to discuss and

enact laws, and in order to discuss and guide the general conduct of executive government;

but it does not exist in order to govern, and if it assumes the character of a government, it will be going beyond the generality which is its nature and trespassing on the sphere of the particular.

Parliament Connected to Electorate and to the Executive

In the second place a parliament, even in the area of its particular purpose or function, does not stand in isolation and cannot act alone.

It is part of a general system of discussion, connected with other parts; and it must look before and after--before, to the electorate; after, to the executive government. If we speak of the sovereignty of parliament, we have to remember that it is exercised in conjunction with two colleagues.

The Cabinet: Its Relations to Parliament and the Electorate

The furthest and last stage of discussion is the stage of the Cabinet, or executive government.

Here discussion passes from speech into action--or rather (since parliament already acts, but only in the form of making general rules and exercising a general control of administration) it passes from the area of generalities into that of the particular and concrete.

Stages of Discussion ConnectedThe cabinet has thus its specific function--

the function of turning a general programme into a series of particular and separate acts, which are yet connected together by a common fidelity to the principles of the program.

But the stages of discussion are from first to last connected, as well as distinct; and the connection between the parliamentary and the cabinet stage is particularly close.

Cabinet and ParliamentIf the cabinet has the function of

administration, parliament has the function of general control of the spirit of administration.

If parliament has the function of legislation, the cabinet has the function of drafting legislative measures for parliament and of guiding their passage through parliament.

Need for Strong Executive Leadership

[Effective democracy requires] the strengthening of executive government, and an adequate provision of leadership.

It is not a paradox, but rather a truism, to add that the provision of a united and commanding executive must be accompanied by the provision of a united and challenging opposition.

Opposition Shadow Cabinet

A cabinet is strengthened rather than weakened by the presence of an organized anti-cabinet; and the general need for the ready provision of leadership is most likely to be satisfied when there is a coherent group of alternative leaders prepared to supply an alternative guidance as soon as it is required.

Requirement for National Parties

An effective cabinet and an effective anti-cabinet both require a system of national parties which will make them possible;

and such a system of national parties demands, in turn, an organization of the electorate, and of its constituencies and methods of voting, which will be congruous with its existence.

Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System

Political parties are indispensable instruments of government– Provide electorate with proper alternatives– Bring continuation to the relationship of ideas about

liberty, majority rule, and leadership American party system has been slow in

responding to public interests Parties must provide direction over the government

as a whole– Bring forth programs to which they commit and are fully

accountable to the public Parties must be viewed as agencies of the

electorate

Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System

Dangers of Inaction:– American people may go too far for the safety of constitutional

government– Shift excessive responsibility to the president– Public cynicism will grow– Disintegration of the two major parties– Incapacity of the two parties to provide consistent action may rally

support for extremist parties– Continued alienation between voters and both major parties

Divided We Govern (David Mayhew)

Today’s voters prefer divided control that provides checks and balances

Divided control is not a new phenomenon Divided control over government does not necessarily result in

deadlock and antagonisms between the executive and the legislature, but rather congressional oversight

Ideological coherence has happened under unified and divided control governments

There is no statistical relationship between divided party control and deficit financing

There is a historical tendency of Congress to follow the lead of the president on fiscal policies regardless of whether government is under unified or divided control

Plenty of historical examples where coordinated efforts took place during divided control

Separation of powers nudges officials toward deliberation, compromise, and super-majority outcomes

Functions and Types of ElectionsBackground: Elections are a part of the democratic

process. They reflect popular attitudes toward governmental parties, policies, etc. There are 4 types of elections:

Maintaining elections: patterns of previous elections persist

Critical elections: result in the permanent realignment of the electorate

Deviating elections: temporary shifts in the electorate

Reinstating elections: the return to normal voting patterns

A Theory of Critical Elections (V.O. Key, Jr.)

The electorate is the principal organ of governance An election is a formal act of collective decision making Many factors affect voting as well as subsequent behavior Central to the concept of critical elections is realignment

within the electorate, both sharp and durable Particular elections rarely form a perfect match for any

particular concept

Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory (Berelson, Lazarsefeld, and McPhee)

The individual voter does not possess the characteristics that the theory of democracy requires him to have

Knowledge– A democratic citizen is expected to be well informed about politics– He is poorly informed about simple and proximate subjects

Principle– Voting must be effected, having his own interests in mind as well as

those of the community– Traditionally, individuals vote the way trusted people around them

are voting Rationality

– Voting decisions must be reached through the exercise of rational judgment and knowledge of consequences and alternatives

– Voting is characterized more by faith than by conviction

Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory (Berelson, Lazarsefeld, and McPhee)

It seems remarkable that democracies have survived the centuries; but the answer lies in the defectiveness of the classic theory and its concentration on the individual citizen

Requirements for the System: Other features are required for democracies to survive:

– Limited intensity of conflict– Rate of change must be restrained– Stability in the social and economic structure must be kept– Pluralistic social organization must exist– A basic consensus must bind the contending parties

Involvement and Indifference– Interested voters vote more but also are less open to persuasion and

less likely to change– Low interest provides maneuvering room for political shifts

Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory (Berelson, Lazarsefeld, and McPhee)

Stability and Flexibility– The least partisan and the least interested voters are more open to

adjustments of attitudes and tastes

Progress and Conservation– The heterogeneous electorate provides a balance between

liberalism and conservatism

Consensus and Cleavage– Pluralism makes for enough consensus to hold the system together

and enough cleavage to make it move

Individualism and Collectivism– The individual does not have a great deal of detailed information;

however, he has picked up crucial general information as part of his social learning

The Responsible Electorate (V.O. Key, Jr.)

It is an error to assume that because a candidate wins, the majority of the electorate shares his views

Election returns establish only that the winner attracted a majority of votes

A candidate may win despite his tactics and appeals rather than because of them

The invention of the sample survey revolutionized the study of politics as well as the management of political campaigns

Many variables impact individuals’ decisions even when they have common backgrounds

Theories of how voters behave acquire importance because of the potential and real effects on candidates, not on voters

Voters are not fools