Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting amp Aiding Candidates Organizing a Complex Government Educating Citizens Promoting Civic Participation Why parties Timeframe Dominant Opposing ID: 297480
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Political Parties" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Political PartiesSlide2
Organizing the Election Process
Facilitating Voter Choice
Recruiting & Aiding CandidatesOrganizing a Complex GovernmentEducating CitizensPromoting Civic Participation
Why parties?Slide3
Timeframe Dominant Opposing
1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps.
1829-1856 Democrats Whigs1857-1892 Republicans Democrats1893-1932 Republicans Democrats1933-1968 Democrats Republicans
1969-now ---Democrats/Republicans---
Party SystemsSlide4
Why two parties?Why no dominance?
QuestionsSlide5
Why two parties???Slide6
Duverger’s Law
Plurality voting systems
FusionElimination
Why two parties???Slide7
Alternative?
Proportional Representation
Why two parties???Slide8
PR allows small parties to win seats
Why two parties???Slide9
Can still influence elections
Third PartiesSlide10
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?
Third PartiesSlide11
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 a spoiler?Slide12
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 gainedNader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush
Nader a spoiler?Slide13
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 gainedNader: 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!
Nader a spoiler?Slide14
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%
Other notes on 2000Slide15
Ross Perot (1992, independent)
Results
Clinton 43% (370 electoral votes)Bush 38% (168 electoral votes)Perot 19% (0 electoral votes)
Third PartiesSlide16
1992 Outcome
Third PartiesSlide17
Perot voters…(without Perot running)
38% would have voted for Clinton
38% would have voted for Bush24% wouldn’t have votedA spoiler?Slide18
Perot voters…(without Perot running)
38% would have voted for Clinton
38% would have voted for Bush24% wouldn’t have voted
Or spoiled…
36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he had a chance
A spoiler?Slide19
End of the “New Deal Coalition”
Secret Ballot
PrimariesMerit SystemWhy no dominant party?Slide20
Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party)
Results
Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes)Dole 41% (159 electoral votes)Perot 8% (0 electoral votes)
Third PartiesSlide21
Run-off elections
Two solutions…Slide22
Run-off elections
Two solutions…Slide23
Run-off elections
Two solutions…Slide24
Run-off electionsPreference Voting
Two solutions…Slide25
Run-off electionsPreference Voting
Ireland (1990 presidential election)
First Preference FinalRobinson
39
% Lenihan
44%
Currie 17%
Two solutions…Slide26
Run-off electionsPreference Voting
Ireland (1990 presidential election)
First Preference FinalRobinson 39% 52%
Lenihan
44%
46
%
Currie 17%
Two solutions…Slide27
Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?
Two solutions