Polarization and American Politics: Is there a Center?

Polarization and American Politics: Polarization and American Politics: Is there a Center?Is there a Center?

Polarization ArgumentPolarization Argument

• Few moderates in electorate (is this true?)

• Partisanship plays greater role in mass voting

• Partisanship plays greater role in Congress

• Party candidates stake out more clear ideological differences

• “Culture war,” Red v. Blue nation, etc.

The Electorate, 1974The Electorate, 1974

Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group

The Electorate in 2004The Electorate in 2004

Ideological self-placement of partisans. Percent w/in each group

Polarized Partisans & ElitesPolarized Partisans & Elites• Partisans “sorting themselves”

• Gradual realignments since 1968

• Demise of southern Democrats

• Demise of New England Republicans

• Transition from economic to social issue divisions

• Institutions should reflect polarization

20

40

60

80

100

perc

ent

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Party Unity in US House Floor Votes, 1960 - 2000

% of Republicans voting with partyon such votes

% of Democrats voting with partyon such votes

proportion of all floor votes withmajority of one party againstmajority of the other

GOP trends since 1974GOP trends since 1974

Ideological self-placement of Republicans (excluding leaners)

Dem trends since 1974Dem trends since 1974

Ideological self-placement of Democrats (excluding leaners)

Polarization, 109th CongressPolarization, 109th Congress

Number of seats; classified by DW-Nom member’s voting score

Feelings about 'opposite' party's presidential candidate (thermometer scores)

Graph plots trends in Democratic identifiers’ feelings about Republican presidential candidates and Republican identifiers feelings about Democratic presidential

candidates.

Gap between Democrats and Republicans' Feelings toward Republican candidates for Congress.

Graph plots the gap between Democrats feeling thermometer ratings of Republican candidates, and Republican’s scores about Republican candidates.

When seen this way: Evidence of growing Polarization

Partisan voters more partisan

Partisan representatives more partisan

But what about every one else

Independents?

Another Picture of ElectorateAnother Picture of Electorate

Retreat from parties and party system (dealingment):

• More independents

• Independents qualitatively different than partisans

• Little mass support for two-party system

• Polarization an artifact of electoral system (safe seats & where people live…)

The Electorate, 1974The Electorate, 1974

Ideological self-placement of ‘‘everyoneeveryone’’. Percent w/in each group

A Centered Electorate, 2004?A Centered Electorate, 2004?

Ideological self-placement of ‘‘everyoneeveryone’’. Percent w/in each group

The Electorate in 2004The Electorate in 2004

Ideological self-placement of ‘everyone’. Proportion of electorate

Moderate Independents 26% of electorate (largest block)

Independents, 1952 - 2004Independents, 1952 - 2004

Responses to initial NES question, “Generally speaking…..”

Independents, since 1974Independents, since 1974

Ideological self-placement of independents (including leaners)

2008: The Electorate2008: The Electorate

• 40% (plurality of Americans identify as independent)

• 40% of independents (who respond) ID as “moderate” “ middle”

• 25% of all Americans (who respond) ID as “moderate” “middle”

• 22% ID as “liberal”

• 32% ID as “conservative”

Change since 1974Change since 1974

More GOP conservatives in Congress

More liberal Democrats in Congress

Fewer Democrats and Republicans in the electorate

Polarization without partisans

Without meaningful political competition

Reform Goals 50 yrs ago:Reform Goals 50 yrs ago:Build Responsible PartiesBuild Responsible Parties

• 1950s, Problem: weak, incoherent parties, lack of accountability

• 1950s Reform goalsCohesive, ideologically distinct partiesParty unity in legislatureGreater party role in campaign financeClosed nominations (no blanket primary)Rank and file partisans select conv. delegatesGreater role of policy in (national) campaigns

Responsible Party ModelResponsible Party Model

APSA report also noted:

End one party rule that renders elections meaningless in much of nation

End electoral college that renders electionsmeaningless in much of nation

Decline of Competition, US Decline of Competition, US House 1898 - 2000House 1898 - 2000

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25P

ropo

rtio

n se

ats

won

wit

h le

ss th

an 5

% m

argi

n

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930 19

40

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

Proportion of House seats won by 5% or less

Incumbent Victory Margins: Incumbent Victory Margins: 1898 - 20001898 - 2000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

GOPMargin

DemMargin

Representation and Representation and CompetitionCompetition

Jan. 2005 - Dec 2006, by type of district. (109th Cong)

Party Discipline w/o Competition

• High levels of cynicism about politics– 43% agree, ‘people have no say’ in 2004– 27% agreed ‘people have no say’ in 1960

– 56% agree ‘elected officials don’t care’ in 2004– 25% agreed officials don’t care in 1960

• Decline in turnout (?)

Are these trends related?Are these trends related?Parties are now much more cohesive:

• Soft money, fundraising post BCRA• Congressional floor voting discipline• Party leaders (in Govt.) more power• Activists dominate presidential nominations

Politics, media more partisan, more polarized

Electoral competition often meaningless (swing, safe seats)

Fewer partisans, engagement with politics down

Public Views of Elections & PartiesPublic Views of Elections & Parties

• Less than 1/3 support maintaining two party system

• Few think that elections make government pay attention

• Turnout stagnant (down in north) despite fewer barriers

Do Elections Matter?Do Elections Matter?

Trends in responses to NES q; Do elections make govt pay attn?

Do Elections Matter?Do Elections Matter?

Growing cynicism & low efficacy about elections

• Pre-dates 2000 election disaster

• Pre-dates recently lobbying scandal

• Unlikely to be affected by HAVA like reforms

Do Elections MatterHow honest vote counting (% very dishonest, 2004):

US 23%Venezuela 18%Taiwan 16%Mexico 13%Philippines 12%S Africa 8%Bulgaria 8%Slovakia 7%Chile 6%Russia 5%

PR, PO, JP, SW, SK, AU, GB

NE, CA, FN, NZ, NO lt 1%

What problem should election What problem should election reforms target?reforms target?

• “faith in elections”

• “public trust”

• “have elections express will of the people”

• engagement with representative democracy

• participation

• polarization w/o partisans, w/o competition

Make Elections Worth StealingMake Elections Worth Stealing

Assume the ‘perfect’ election under HAVA - type reforms

polling places, early voting, registration….

Assume just one candidate has a chance to win ….

Will HAVA reforms affect anything?

Make Elections Worth StealingMake Elections Worth Stealing

If you build it, they will come…

Electoral competition -> representation of ‘center’, median

Electoral competition -> alter composition of electorate

Electoral competition -> interest, learning, participation

Electoral competition -> accountability, change in govt.

Electoral competition -> over crowded polling locations,

more Florida 2000, cheating, etc.

Larger QuestionsLarger Questions

How much should government & elections represent those care the least about politics?

Will more competition make people upset?

How much does political apathy is due to thedysfunctional aspects of institutions?

What reforms?