American Government Lecture Eight

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrianCo (Talk | contribs) at 13:54, 11 October 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

American Government

Eighth Lecture – Political Parties & Voting & Elections


We are finished with the topic of the media, but it will impact the remainder of this course just as it influences everything in politics. It is impossible to address an issue fully without mentioning the media.

First we will complete our discussion of political parties, one of the few powers that can sometimes withstand media pressure. Then we discuss voting and elections. Afterwards, we have some fun looking at the presidential election of 2004.

Political Parties (continued from last class)

Politics is like a team sport for many people. They put on their helmets and knee-pads, enlist people on their side, and then attack the other side. Or they defend against an initiative by the other side.

It is difficult for a solitary voice or one-person army to win alone. It would be like one man trying to be his own football team. He may be the greatest athlete in the world, but he would lose against a team of 11 every time. However, one person can always mean the difference between victory and defeat, no matter how large the teams are.

Political parties are the teams in government. Critics might call them “gangs”. The players work to help each other, and oppose players on the other team (the other political party). It is “us versus them.”

The benefits of teamwork are obvious. It is much easier to pass legislation when a party boss can call members of his party and tell them how to vote. When party members disobey the boss or “leadership”, then they are disciplined to set an example.

Phil Gramm was a Democratic congressman from Texas who disobeyed his leadership and voted in favor of Republican Ronald Reagan’s economic legislation in the early 1980s. When the Democratic leadership disciplined him by removing him from a key committee position, he fought back.

Phil Gramm resigned his seat and called for a special election to fill his own vacancy. He then switched parties and ran as a Republican. Many voters do not like political parties and Phil Gramm won in a landslide for his courage. Later, he turned his popularity into winning a U.S. Senate seat for Texas. He even attracted support for the Republican nomination for president in 1996. (Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat who changed and became a Republican.)

But Phil Gramm's experience is an exception. Not every state is like Texas, and many candidates are unwilling to switch political parties. After all, they spent their entire life being a member of one party. It is not easy to change and admit error, and abandon lifelong friendships. Not even Senator Jeffords of Vermont could switch from Republican to Democrat when he rebelled against President Bush in 2001. Instead, Senator Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent.

Political parties, as big as they have become, are still controlled by only a handful of people. The “smoke-filled room” is a term used to describe a few powerful people smoking cigars who make all the important political decisions. President Truman made decisions about who would control Europe after World War II while playing cards with a few buddies.

Despite the mass media, television and internet, there is still a great deal of truth to this image of politics. On the Republican side, the Bush family and a few close advisors have made major decisions, such as invading Iraq and passing the education bill “No Child Left Behind”. On the Democratic side, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are thought to control many decisions. Some feel that they may even install Hillary Clinton as the presidential or nominee for the Democrats in 2004, even though she has said she is not running.

So how much “teamwork” there really is in a political party is debatable. Perhaps an “army”, with a few generals and many soldiers, describes political parties better. After all, efforts to capture office are called “campaigns”. But as bad as political parties can be, they are the only thing stopping compete control of politics by the media. For that we can be grateful.

At the top of the party structure is the Republican National Committee, which raises enormous sums of money. It then distributes that money to state parties, and it provides money to assist in political campaigns that it supports. (The same is true for the Democratic National Committee.) Candidates disfavored by those who control the Republican National Committee are unable to obtain financial support. Only individually wealthy candidates, such as Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois in 1998, are able to run and be elected to statewide office over the opposition of the national party leadership. Nearly everyone is afraid to disobey the party leadership.


























Open v. Closed Primaries

Many debate whether primaries should be “open” or “closed” and states disagree among themselves. “Closed” primaries favor the party regulars, while “open” primaries allows non-party votes like independents to exert influence over the nominating process.

In some states, like Michigan, the Republican Party went to an open primary system as a way of attracting new members. Michigan is a heavily unionized state, the location of the Big Three automakers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler). Union voters have been overwhelmingly Democratic, and the Republican Party looked for ways to bring some over to the Republican column.

An open primary offers that opportunity. It enables Democrats to vote for Republican candidates, even if just in primary. The idea is that by allowing Democrats to vote that way in primaries, then they will begin to vote that way in general elections also. It helps break the almost religious devotion that some families have to the Democratic Party.

However, others have sought to open up primaries in order to enable “moderates” to do better. In California, moderate Republican Tom Campbell pushed a referendum to allow any citizen to vote for any candidate in any primary. Known as the “blanket” primary, this allowed citizens to vote for a Republican candidate for governor, a Democratic candidate for lieutenant government, and a Green (environmental) candidate for Attorney General. The Republican and Democratic Parties sued to stop this, because it diluted the political parties and gave independent voters enormous influence over the nominating process.

I helped write a amicus brief before the Supreme Court to invalidate this referendum based on freedom of association, a right implied in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that a political party has the constitutional right to limit its primaries to its own registered voters. Democratic Party of California v. Jones (2000). As a result, conservative Bill Simon won an upset victory over moderate Richard Riordan in the Republican party gubernatorial (governor) primary in 2002.

Presidential Election 2007

It is fun to discuss future elections, and debate who will win. The outcome may affect our nation’s future. As we have discussed, polls are an imperfect predictor. But let’s start with some numbers in sizing up the Democratic primary, as of Oct. 31, 2007:[1]

By the end of March, less than two months after New Hampshire, the vast majority of Democratic votes will be cast and the nominee will likely be chosen. That is because of the “front-loading” of the nomination process, whereby states moved their primaries earlier and earlier to be more influential in the process. You can see why candidates try so hard to win in New Hampshire. Every newspaper (there’s the media, again) will carry the picture and headline for the winner in New Hampshire. Momentum is then very helpful, fanned by the media, in carrying the winner to victories in other states. South Carolina and Arizona hold their primaries one week after New Hampshire, on February 3rd. Also on February 3rd: Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and North Dakota. Next on February 10th: District of Columbia, Tennessee and Virginia. When is your state's presidential primary?

The Republican nomination is still very much up for grabs:[2]


  1. Should voting registration and party affiliation be public information?
  2. Do you favor making voting easier?
  3. Do you favor open or closed primaries?