Political Parties in America

Jeffrey M. Stonecash teaches in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Department of Political Science at Syracuse University. He is also professor-in-residence in the New York Assembly.

The closely contested presidential election of 2000, which many analysts felt was decided by voters for the Green Party, cast a spotlight on a structural contradiction of American politics. Critics charged that Green Party voters inadvertently contributed to the election of a conservative Republican president because they chose to "vote their conscience" rather than "choose between two evils." But why this choice of two? Is the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans an immutable and indispensable aspect of our democracy? Lisa Disch maintains that it is not. There is no constitutional warrant for two parties, and winner-take-all elections need not set third parties up to fail. She argues that the two-party system as we know it dates only to the twentieth century and that it thwarts democracy by wasting the votes and silencing the voices of dissenters. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System reexamines a once popular nineteenth-century strategy called fusion, in which a dominant-party candidate ran on the ballots of both the established party and a third party. In the nineteenth century fusion made possible something that many citizens wish were possible today: to register a protest vote that counts and that will not throw the election to the establishment candidate they least prefer. The book concludes by analyzing the 2000 presidential election as an object lesson in the tyranny of the two-party system and with suggestions for voting experiments to stimulate participation and make American democracy responsive to a broader range of citizens.

This work answers key questions by first placing the dilemma in the context of recent elections - at both the state and federal level - and by defining the types of minor parties and of the roles they play.

Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once commented that "in times of great political change and rapid political transition it will generally be observed that political parties find it convenient to rebaptize themselves". Fifty years after the publication of E. E. Schattschneider's Party Government and forty-two years after the publication of Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, distinguished scholars including Everett Carll Ladd, Wilson Carey McWilliams, John S. Jackson III, Sidney M. Milkis, and scholar-congressmen David E. Price (D-NC) and William M. Thomas (R-CA) reevaluate the long-standing assumptions that surround the "responsible parties" argument. In this collection of essays edited by John Kenneth White and Jerome M. Mileur, contributors voice their perspectives on the challenges confronting the party system of government in the United States. Elections in which the party system fails to frame issues satisfactorily and the rise of an American state without the helping hand of parties to run it have all contributed to a political crisis of confidence in party government. Indeed, White recently termed Ross Perot's candidacy a "wake-up call" for Democrats and Republicans. Still, while their analysis of current party government acknowledges problems, these authors favor a resurgence of the party system, arguing that political parties are the indispensable instruments of communication between our country's voters and their elected officials. For those political scientists, elected officials, and voters who share their wish, immersing these once grand institutions into the "born-again" waters of a Disraeli-type baptism remains the single most important challenge ofthe decade ahead.

Southern politics has changed dramatically during the past half century. While new developments have touched virtually every aspect of the region's politics, change has been especially marked in the South's political party and electoral systems. Southern Parties and Elections explores the contemporary developments in party realignment and examines the relationship between regional party change and electoral behavior and the larger patterns in national politics.

This is the first major study of the origins of direct primary elections in the U.S. since the 1920s. It rejects the widely held view that primaries resulted from a conflict between anti-party reformers and so-called party "regulars." Instead, it shows that the direct primary was the result of an attempt, starting in the late 1880s, by mainstream party politicians to subject their previously informal procedures to formal rules. Politicians turned to the direct primary because it proved impossible to make effective changes to the caucus-convention system of nominating candidates.