Chapter 7

Political Parties, Elections,

Interest Groups and the Idea of
Competition
 ORGANIZED PARTICIPATION

• POLITICAL PARTIES

• INTEREST GROUPS
 PARTIES
• CONSTITUENT FUNCTION
SELECT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE
FORMAL PROCESS GOVERNED BY STATE & FEDERAL LAW
SUPPORT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE
• INFORMATION FUNCTION
DEVELOP A PROGRAM & EDUCATE PUBLIC
SET OF BELIEFS, NEARLY COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY GOALS & PROGRAMS FOR GOVERNMENT
• GOVERNMENT FUNCTION
WINNERS ORGANIZE GOVERNMENT,
LEGISLATURES CAUCUS & GET COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS BY PARTY;
GOVERNOR APPOINTS SUPPORTERS BY PARTY
JUDGES TEND TO VOTE TOGETHER

Parties are active during elections

 INTEREST GROUPS
• CONSTITUENT FUNCTION
LIMITED; DO NOT SELECT CANDIDATES BUT DO SUPPORT CANDIDATES.
CAN SUPPORT CANDIDATES DURING PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
CAN AND DO SUPPORT BOTH CONTESTANTS FOR SAME OFFICE.
SUPPORT AFTER ELECTION IS COMMON IN TEXAS.
• INFORMATION FUNCTION
BELIEFS NOT NECESSARILY COMPREHENSIVE IN SCOPE;
LIMITED POLICY PREFERENCES
PRIMARY TARGET IS GROUP MEMBERS RATHER THAN ENTIRE PUBLIC
• GOVERNMENT FUNCTION
DO NOT ORGANIZE GOVERNMENT;
BUT DO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ORGANIZE FOR SPECIFIC POLICY
GOALS

Interest groups are active between elections

 History of American Political Parties
• Ratifying the Constitution
Federalists
Anti-Federalist, disorganized, rural
• Civil War
Republican North
Democratic South
• Machine Politics
urban machine
Democratic party with no ties with DP
• New Deal Democrats
Hyper-partisanship
1.Maximization of party control of election districts through
gerrymandering
2.Expansion of partisan electronic and broadcast media
3.Reduction of bipartisan cooperation and centralization of
power in Congress
4.Primary elections
5.Lack of local competition
 Figure 7.1
Gallup Poll Party Identification in Presidential Election Years
Year Democrat or Lean Democrat Republican or Lean Republican

1952 57 34
1956 51 37
1960 54 34
1964 60 30
1968 55 33
1972 51 34
1976 52 33
1980 50 36
1984 50 42
1988 47 41
1992 50 37
1996 53 39
2000 49 38
2004 50 40
2008 45 44
2012 47 42
2016 48 41
 Why two major political parties?

• Dualism
• Institutional factors
• Winner-take-all, single-member districts
• Primary elections
• Party identification
• English heritage
PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEMS

• CLOSED PRIMARY
• OPEN PRIMARY
• SEMI-CLOSED PRIMARY
• TOP TWO
 Figure 7.3
2016 Primary Election Systems For Congress
 Figure 7.4
VEP Primary Election Turnout in Presidential Election Years 2000-2016
In States Where Both Parties Have Primary Elections
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Alabama 15% 32% 25% 35% Montana 39% 31% 35%
Alaska Nebraska 21% 19% 21%
Arizona 13% 7% 24% 12% 24% Nevada
Arkansas 15% 27% 16% 20% New Hampshire 44% 30% 54% 31% 52%
California 40% 31% 40% 23% 25% New Jersey 4% 29% 9% 20%
Colorado New Mexico 19% 17% 22%
Connecticut 16% 6% 2% 21% New York 25% 20% 1%
Delaware 8% 6% 24% 4% 24% North Carolina 33% 32% 20%
Florida 13% 34% 13% 28% North Dakota 32%
Georgia 18% 14% 32% 16% 30% Ohio 31% 28% 42% 14% 36%
Hawaii Oklahoma 11% 15% 29% 15% 29%
Idaho Oregon 43% 22% 40%
Illinois 19% 34% 18% 37% Pennsylvania 34% 15% 33%
Indiana 37% 20% 36% Rhode Island 28% 3% 24%
Iowa South Carolina 20% 9% 30% 18% 31%
Kansas South Dakota 28% 15% 19%
Kentucky 29% 13% 18% Tennessee 11% 11% 26% 13% 25%
Louisiana 8% 18% 10% 18% Texas 15% 11% 28% 13% 25%
Maine Utah 25% 14% 13%
Maryland 25% 17% 32% 15% 30% Vermont 41% 21% 40%
Massachusetts 16% 15% 38% 11% 37% Virginia 8% 27% 5% 30%
Michigan 20% 20% 17% 34% Washington 31%
Minnesota West Virginia 33% 20% 31%
Mississippi 28% 18% 30% Wisconsin 23% 25% 37% 19% 49%
Missouri 19% 13% 33% 7% 35% Wyoming
 Figure 7.5
Texas Voting Age and Voting Eligible Turnout for Primary Elections
Presidential Election Years
Republican Republican Democratic Democratic
VAP Turnout VEP Turnout VAP Turnout VEP Turnout

2000 5.3% 6.3% 7.6% 9.1%

2004 4.2% 4.9% 5.2% 6.0%

2008 7.8% 9.1% 16.4% 19.2%

2012 7.6% 9.1% 3.1% 3.7%

2016 13.8% 16.4% 7.0% 8.3%

Non-Presidential Election Years

Republican Republican Democratic Democratic
VAP Turnout VEP Turnout VAP Turnout VEP Turnout

2002 3.9% 4.7% 6.4% 7.6%

2006 3.9% 4.6% 3.0% 3.6%

2010 8.0% 9.6% 3.7% 4.4%

2014 6.6% 7.9% 2.6% 3.1%

 Figure 7.7
General Election Turnout: Northern and Former Confederate States Averages
Northern Northern Former Confederate Former Confederate
VAP VEP VAP VEP
1980 57% 58% 47% 48%
1982 46% 47% 31% 32%
1984 57% 59% 49% 50%
1986 42% 43% 34% 35%
1988 55% 57% 46% 48%
1990 42% 44% 33% 34%
1992 60% 62% 51% 53%
1994 43% 45% 34% 36%
1996 52% 55% 46% 48%
1998 40% 43% 31% 33%
2000 54% 57% 48% 51%
2002 41% 44% 35% 38%
2004 60% 64% 53% 57%
2006 43% 46% 33% 36%
2008 60% 64% 56% 61%
2010 42% 45% 35% 38%
2012 56% 60% 54% 58%
2014 38% 40% 33% 36%
 Figure 7.10
Correlations With Republican Party Control of Legislature 2015
Republican
Control
Per Capita State and Local Revenue -.25
Per Capita State and Local Expenditure -.24
State and Local Tax Burden -.31

Regressivity of State and Local Taxes .22

Per Capita State and Local Long Term Debt -.64
Percent of VAP Registered to Vote, 2014 General Election .14
TANF Monthly Family Benefit -.07
Educational Spending Per Child in ADA -.47
Percent Medicaid Paid by State and Local Government -.31
Poverty Rate .20
Violent Crime Rate .15
Property Crime Rate .20
Prisoners Per 100,000 Population .49
New Prisoners Per 100,000 Population .30
 Is the party over?
• Decline in party attachments
primary elections--weakened parties
new-style politics
advertising campaign, media based
negative campaigning--mud,
“swift boating”
“branding”
 INTEREST GROUPS
• ORGANIZATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO
SHARE ONE OR MORE INTEREST

• TRY TO INFLUENCE POLITICAL SYSTEM

 INTEREST GROUP ASSETS

• LARGE NUMBERS
SIZE IS AN ASSET, USEFUL FOR ELECTIONEERING AND
COMMUNICATING PREFERENCES TO GOVT. OFFICIALS.
BUT SMALLER GROUPS EASIER TO ORGANIZE; EASIER TO
STIMULATE PARTICIPATION
• WEALTH
Funding
• STATUS
Visibility and expertise
INTEREST GROUP ACTIVITIES

• ELECTIONEERING
get members to vote; elect friends, defeat enemies
• LOBBYING
Government for policy change; sharing information
• PROPAGANDIZING
Public for support
 Interest Groups Representation
• Who Is Organized?
Organized interests are much more powerful (i.e., relevant to the
policy-making process) than those that are not organized.

• Economic producing groups are more likely to be organized than

are consuming groups.
• People with more education and income are more likely to join
groups than are people with less education and income.
• Those who join groups out of personal involvement tend to feel
strongly about the issue around which the group is organized.
• Wealthy
• White and Male
• Involved in business



















 Interest Groups in the Political Process

• Lobbying
– To lobby is to attempt to influence policy makers
face-to-face.
– Making direct personal contact with legislators is
the best lobbying technique
– While everyone has a right to influence government
officials, it is corporations and trade organizations
that employ the most lobbyists.



















 Interest Groups in the Political Process

• Contributions or Bribery?
– Contributing money to politicians is the best way to
ensure personal access to legislators.
– Money is contributed in a variety of ways.
• Interest groups spend money entertaining
legislators and executive officials at parties,
lunch, award ceremonies, and other events.
• Groups give money to politicians in the form of
campaign contributions.



















 Interest Groups in the Political Process

• Contributions or Bribery?
– Interest groups are eager to give money in the hope that
they will be rewarded with favorable laws, rulings, and
policies.
– Texas ranks in the top three states for the number of
lobbyists representing the energy, insurance, banking, real
estate, health care, and agriculture industries.
• The saga of Enron illustrates the point that the actions of a rich
interest group wielding the power of money to gain access and
influence over policymakers are typical and systematic.



















 Interest Groups in the Political Process
• A PAC is a committee formed by an organization, industry, or
individual for the purpose of collecting money and then
contributing that money to selected political candidates and
causes.
• PACs concentrate the financial clout of large numbers of
individuals and can, therefore, influence public policy more
effectively than can a single, ordinary individual.
• While some states such as Maine and California limit the
amount of money that PACs can contribute to state elections,
in Texas these groups may give as much as they wish.
• Most politicians are sensitive to private, as opposed, to public
interests due to the reality of electoral financing, not
personal dishonesty.


















