Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T11:12:18.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divisive Primaries: Party Organizations, Ideological Groups, and the Battle over Party Purity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Michael H. Murakami
Michael H. Murakami
Affiliation:
2007–2008 Congressional Fellow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of the many vital functions that political parties serve in American democracy, selecting candidates for public office is near the top of the list. Giovanni Sartori (1976) cites this purpose as their chief defining element—claiming that, at a minimum, a party is a “political group that presents at elections, and is capable of placing through elections, candidates for public office” (64). Moreover, understanding how parties vet, groom, select, and promote candidates is central to empirically evaluating the strength of political party organizations, the quality of elected policymakers, and ultimately the effectiveness of government. For scholars of American politics, this has led to fruitful lines of research on the processes that the Democratic and Republican Parties use to select their candidates—namely the conventions, primaries, and caucuses that nominate individuals for various federal, state, and local offices. For example, many have investigated the effects of reforms to the presidential nomination process in the early 1970s (Aldrich 1993; Hagen and Mayer 2000; Reiter 1985; Wayne 2000), some arguing that it took power of choosing candidates away from the party organizations and towards other institutions like the press, interest groups, and small ideological factions (Polsby 1983) with potentially negative consequences for governance.

Type
Association News
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 918 - 923
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Presidential Selection.” In Researching the Presidency: Vital Questions, New Approaches, ed. Edwards, George C. II, Kessel, John H., and Rockman, Bert A.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Saving, Jason L.. 1997. “Deficits, Democrats, and Distributive Benefits: Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel in the 1980s.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (4): 809–31.Google Scholar
Bai, Matt. 2003. “Fight Club.” New York Times, August 10.Google Scholar
Bickers, Kenneth N., and Stein, Robert M.. 1996. “The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1300–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Smith, Steven S.. 1997. Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Briffault, Richard. 2008. “Decline and Fall? The Roberts Court and the Challenges to Campaign Finance Law.” The Forum 6 (1).Google Scholar
Budoff, Carrie. 2004. “Out-of-State Money Pours into Toomey-Specter Race.” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 18.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, James. 2004a. “Conservative Takes On Moderate G.O.P. Senator in Pennsylvania.” New York Times, April 3.Google Scholar
Dao, James. 2004b. “Specter Wins Senate Primary in Close Vote.” New York Times, April 28.Google Scholar
Feldman, Paul, and Jondrow, James. 1984. “Congressional Elections and Local Federal Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morrs P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Rivers, Douglas. 1989. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the Incumbency Advantage.” In Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of Congressional Politics, ed. Fiorina, Morris P. and Rohde, David W.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, Richard, and Bond, John R.. 2000. “Partisanship and the President's Quest for Votes on the floor of Congress.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 154–85.Google Scholar
Franz, Michael M. 2008. “The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform.” The Forum 6 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hagen, Michael G., and Mayer, William G.. 2000. “The Modern Politics of Presidential Selection: How Changing the Rules Really Did Change the Game.” In Pursuit of the White House 2000: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, ed. Mayer, William G.. New York: Seven Bridges Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, eds. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2006. “Disconnected, of Joined at the Hip?” In Red and Blue Nation? Volume One: Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, ed. Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W.. Baltimore, MD: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Falk, Erica. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Civility in the House.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard, 96–108.Google Scholar
Johannes, John R., and McAdams, John C.. 1981. “The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is it Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else? An Examination of the 1978 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 512–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O. Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J. 2008. “From Bad to Worse: The Unraveling of the Campaign Finance System.” The Forum 6 (1).Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006a. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006b. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?” Unpublished manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, Michael H. 2008. The Power of Identity: The Consequences of Party Polarization for the Attitudes and Behaviors of the Mass Public. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 2004. How Congress Evolves: The Social Bases of Institutional Change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2008. “Political Polarization in the 109th Congress is the Highest in a 120 Years.” http://voteview.com.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, Howard. 1985. Selecting the President: The Nominating Process in Transition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Serra, George. 1994. “What's in it for Me? The Impact of Congressional Casework on Incumbent Evaluation.” American Politics Research 22 (4): 403–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serra, George, and Cover, Albert D.. 1992. “The Electoral Consequences of Perquisite Use: The Casework Case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (2): 233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1997. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2000. “Hostile Partners: The President, Congress, and Lawmaking in the Partisan 1990s.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard, 134–53.Google Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Brewer, Mark D., and Mariani, Mack D.. 2002. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M. 2000. “Is the Senate More Civil Than the House?” In Esteemed Colleagues: Civility and Deliberation in the Senate, ed. Loomis, Burdett A., 32–56. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1992. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wayne, Stephen J. 2000. The Road to the White House 2000: The Politics of Presidential Elections. Boston, NY: Bedford/St. Martin.Google Scholar