Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-4xs5l Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2021-06-10T16:56:52.897Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2012

Kathleen Bawn
Affiliation:
UCLA, kbawn@polisci.ucla.edu
Martin Cohen
Affiliation:
James Madison University, martycohen17@gmail.com
David Karol
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, dkarol@umd.edu
Seth Masket
Affiliation:
University of Denver, seth.masket@du.edu
Hans Noel
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, hcn4@georgetown.edu
John Zaller
Affiliation:
UCLA, zaller@ucla.edu

Abstract

We propose a theory of political parties in which interest groups and activists are the key actors, and coalitions of groups develop common agendas and screen candidates for party nominations based on loyalty to their agendas. This theoretical stance contrasts with currently dominant theories, which view parties as controlled by election-minded politicians. The difference is normatively important because parties dominated by interest groups and activists are less responsive to voter preferences, even to the point of taking advantage of lapses in voter attention to politics. Our view is consistent with evidence from the formation of national parties in the 1790s, party position change on civil rights and abortion, patterns of polarization in Congress, policy design and nominations for state legislatures, Congress, and the presidency.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2008. “Don't Blame Primary Voters for Polarization.” Forum 5: Article 4.Google Scholar
Achen, Chris, and Bartels, Larry 2004. “Musical Chairs: Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. “Moderate Now, Win Votes Later: The Electoral Consequence of Parties' Policy Shifts in 25 Postwar Democracies.” Journal of Politics 71: 678–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Political Science Association. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry, and Zaller, John. 2001. “Presidential Vote Models: A Recount.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34(1): 920.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, and Noel, Hans. 2007. “Long Coalitions under Electoral Uncertainty: Zero Sum Conflict and the Electoral Origins of Political Parties.” Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 12–16.Google Scholar
Baylor, Chris. 2011. “First to the Party: The Interest Group Origins of Party Transformations.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, September 1–4.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making.” Journal of Political Economy 56: 2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, Calude. 1945. Jefferson and Hamilton. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1989. “The Reagan Heritage.” In The Election of 1988: Reports and Interpretations, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. et al. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David, and Cogan, John. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward, and Stimson, James. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press..Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie, Koger, Gregory, Lebo, Matthew, and Young, Everett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 598616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric, Kayser, Mark, Linzer, Drew, and Rogowski, Ronald. 2011. Electoral Systems and the Balance of Consumer-Producer Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Martin. 2005. “Moral Victories: Cultural Conservatism and the Creation of a New Republican Congressional Majority.” Ph.D. diss. University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Martin, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John R.. 2011. “Without a Watchdog: The Effect of Local News on Political Polarization in Congress.” Working paper can be found at http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/hcn4/.Google Scholar
Coleman, John. 1996. “Resurgent or Just Busy? Party Organization in Contemporary America.” In The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties, 2d ed., Green, John C. and Shea, Daniel M.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1987. The Efficient Secret. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew. 2005. Setting the Agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Nobel. 1957. The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1790–1801. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Dionne, E.J. 1991. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105(1): 100–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1951. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Brian, and Schickler, Eric. 2008. “Platforms and Partners: The Civil Rights Realignment Reconsidered.” Studies in American Political Development 22(1): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1990. “Information and the Electoral Process.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John and Kuklinski, James. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1982. “Group Concentration and the Delegation of Legislative Authority.”, Social Sciences Working Paper 438, August 1982. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, with Samuel, and Pope, Jeremy. 2004. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gibson, James, Cotter, Cornelius, Bibby, John, and Huchshorn, Robert. 1985. “Whither the Local Parties? A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of the Strength of Party Organizations.” American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gienapp, William. 1987. The Rise of the Republican Party. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location when One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 862–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Matt, and Dominguez, Casey. 2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research 37(5): 767800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob, and Pierson, Paul. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard, and Deardorff, Alan. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review 100(1): 6984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasen, Richard L. 2001. “Do the Parties or the People Own the Electoral Process?University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149(3): 815–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilemann, John, and Halperin, Mark. 2010. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul. 2008. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 5th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Hershey, Marjorie. 2013. Party Politics in America. 15th ed.New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc, and Larson, Bruce. 2010. Parties, Politics and Public Policy in America. 11th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas. 2008. “Implications of the ‘Bread and Peace’ Model for the 2008 US Presidential Election.” Public Choice 137: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirano, Shigeo, Snyder, James, Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hansen, John Mark. 2010. “Primary Elections and Party Polarization in Congress.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5: 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Michael. 1999. The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Kang, Michael S. 2011. “Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation.” Georgetown Law Journal 99(4): 1014–75.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karol, David, and Miguel, Edward. 2007. “The Electoral Cost of War: Iraq Casualties and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 69(3): 633–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard, and Mair, Peter. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1(1): 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard, and Mair, Peter. 2009. “The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement. Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections. American Political Science Review 99(2): 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Bruce, Magleby, David, Nelson, Candice, and Orr, Elizabeth. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, Roderick, and McCubbins, Matthew. 1991. The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory, Masket, Seth, and Noel, Hans. 2006. “Partisan Webs: Using the Address Market to Study Extended Party Networks.” Prepared for the Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 20–23.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, Carsey, Thomas, Green, John, Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104(2): 324–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Power, Principles and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1990. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of European Party Systems.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13(3): 227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockard, Duane. 1959. New England State Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, T.J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory.” World Politics 16: 677715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1992. “Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 390403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 6376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew. 1994. “Who Controls? Information and the Structure of Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(3): 361384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maisel, L. Sandy, and Berry, Jeffrey. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2007. “It Takes an Outsider: Extra-legislative Organization And Partisanship In The California Assembly, 1849–2006.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 482–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middendorf, John. 2006. A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Moon, Woojin. 2004. “Party Activists, Campaign Resources and Candidate Position Taking: Theory, Tests and Applications.” British Journal of Political Science 34(4): 611–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowry, George. 1963. California Progressives. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Mueller, Wolfgang, and Strom, Kaare. 1999. Policy, Office or Votes? New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2012. “The Coalition Merchants: The Ideological Roots of the Civil Rights Realignment.” Journal of Politics 74(1): 156173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pasley, Jeffrey. 2001. Tyranny of the Printers. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathan, and Cain, Bruce E.. 2000. “The Legal Status of Political Parties: A Reassessment of Competing Paradigms.” Columbia Law Review 100(3): 775812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1983. The Consequences of Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., and Wildavsky, Aaron B.. 2000. Presidential Elections: Strategies of American Electoral Politics. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald. 1966. Nominating the President: The Politics of Convention Choice, with a New Postscript on 1964. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Roll Call Vote Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83(1): 93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy. 2010. On the Side of Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven. 1983. Forecasting Presidential Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Elizabeth. 1999. Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1977. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1942. Party Government. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. Semisoverign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, Pearson, Kathryn, and Feinstein, Brian. 2010. “Congressional Parties and Civil Rights Politics from 1933 to 1972.” Journal of Politics 72: 672–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 3d ed.New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1989. “Why Parties?” Manuscript. University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66(2): 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, David A., Bendor, Jonathan, and Kumar, Sunil. 2007. “Rational Parties and Retrospective Voters.” In Topics in Analytical Political Economy, ed. Barnett, William and Hinich, Melvin J.. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1983. Majority Leadership in the U.S. House. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2000. Unorthodox Lawmaking. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul, Brody, Richard, and Tetlock, Phillip. 1993. Reasoning and Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James, and Ting, Michael. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 90110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, John, and Mosk, Matthew. 2007. “New Loyalties for Old Fundraising Networks.” Washington Post. April 17, A6.Google Scholar
Strom, Kaare. 1994. “The Presthus Debacle: Intraparty Politics and Bargaining Failure in Norway.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 112–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, Sean. 2008. Party Polarization in the Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2008. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Houweling, Robert. 2008. “Legislators Personal Policy Preferences and Partisan Legislative Organization.” Manuscript. University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1991. The Rise of Candidate Centered Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayne, Stephen. 2008. The Road to the White House. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. “The Politics of Blame Avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy 6: 371–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilentz, Sean. 2005. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77(1): 142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. “Explaining Women's Rights Realignment: Convention Delegates, 1972–1992.” Political Behavior 24: 237–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989. “Policy Voting in the U.S. Senate: Who Is Represented?Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
261
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *