1 / 27

Political Parties

Political Parties. Why parties?. Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates Organizing a Complex Government Educating Citizens Promoting Civic Participation. Party Systems. Timeframe Dominant Opposing 1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps.

brent
Download Presentation

Political Parties

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Political Parties

  2. Why parties? • Organizing the Election Process • Facilitating Voter Choice • Recruiting & Aiding Candidates • Organizing a Complex Government • Educating Citizens • Promoting Civic Participation

  3. Party Systems Timeframe Dominant Opposing 1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps. 1829-1856 Democrats Whigs 1857-1892 Republicans Democrats 1893-1932 Republicans Democrats 1933-1968 Democrats Republicans 1969-now ---Democrats/Republicans---

  4. Questions • Why two parties? • Why no dominance?

  5. Why two parties???

  6. Why two parties??? • Duverger’s Law • Plurality voting systems • Fusion • Elimination

  7. Why two parties??? • Alternative? • Proportional Representation

  8. Why two parties??? • PR allows small parties to win seats

  9. Third Parties • Can still influence elections

  10. Third Parties • Ralph Nader (2000, Green Party) • Results • Bush 47.9% (271 electoral votes) • Gore 48.4% (266 electoral votes) • Nader 2.7% (0 electoral votes) Was Nader a spoiler?

  11. Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained

  12. Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained • Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush

  13. Nader a spoiler? • 97,000 votes in Florida • Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ • This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained • Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush • Also…don’t forget uncounted military ballots!

  14. Other notes on 2000 • No recount in Gore victories in • New Mexico (Gore won by .06%) • Wisconsin (.22%) • Iowa (.31%) • Oregon (.44%) • Numerous irregularities reported in Wisconsin • State law guarantees right to recount if <.5%

  15. Third Parties • Ross Perot (1992, independent) • Results • Clinton 43% (370 electoral votes) • Bush 38% (168 electoral votes) • Perot 19% (0 electoral votes)

  16. Third Parties • 1992 Outcome

  17. A spoiler? • Perot voters…(without Perot running) • 38% would have voted for Clinton • 38% would have voted for Bush • 24% wouldn’t have voted

  18. A spoiler? • Perot voters…(without Perot running) • 38% would have voted for Clinton • 38% would have voted for Bush • 24% wouldn’t have voted • Or spoiled… • 36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he had a chance

  19. Why no dominant party? • End of the “New Deal Coalition” • Secret Ballot • Primaries • Merit System

  20. Third Parties • Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party) • Results • Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes) • Dole 41% (159 electoral votes) • Perot 8% (0 electoral votes)

  21. Two solutions… • Run-off elections

  22. Two solutions… • Run-off elections

  23. Two solutions… • Run-off elections

  24. Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting

  25. Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting • Ireland (1990 presidential election) First Preference Final • Robinson 39% • Lenihan 44% • Currie 17%

  26. Two solutions… • Run-off elections • Preference Voting • Ireland (1990 presidential election) First Preference Final • Robinson 39% 52% • Lenihan 44% 46% • Currie 17%

  27. Two solutions • Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?

More Related