Party system

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: party system

Political system in which individuals who share a common set of political beliefs organize themselves into parties to compete in elections for the right to govern. Single-party systems are found in countries that do not allow genuine political conflict. Multiparty and two-party systems represent means of organizing political conflict within pluralistic societies and are thus indicative of democracy. Multiparty systems allow for greater representation of minority viewpoints; since the coalitions that minority parties must often form with other minority parties to achieve a governing majority are often fragile, such systems may be marked by instability. See also electoral system.

For more information on party system, visit Britannica.com.

Search unanswered questions...

Browse: Unanswered questions | Most-recent questions | Reference library

5min Related Video: Party system

Top

US Supreme Court: Party System

Top

Long periods of great stability, in which one party dominates the institutions of government and exercises control over the broad outlines of public policy, have marked the history of American politics. These stable periods are separated by brief but intense periods of realignment, in which the old party system collapses and a new one is ushered in. The Supreme Court has both shaped and been shaped by these periods of realignment.

Political scientists and historians recognize that realignments of the party system occurred during the late 1820s, the 1850s, the 1890s, and the 1930s. These periods of upheaval brought about the decline of old parties and the emergence of new ones; or saw major changes in the leadership, constituency, and policy orientation of the existing major parties. During these periods of realignment extraordinary controversy swirled around the Supreme Court, and these periods demarcate the major transition points in Supreme Court history.

Critical realignments were caused by the American political system's inability to respond to long‐term demands for change on the part of large numbers of citizens. Such demands usually centered on government economic policy and typically cut across the existing lines of partisan division. The leadership of both parties had an incentive to suppress the building unrest or seek compromise solutions. If such pressures continued to build, however, moderates of both parties came under attack from the political extremes. Under the pressure of a series of triggering events—the slavery crisis in Kansas, the Panic of 1893, or the Great Depression of 1929, for example—the forces seeking change eventually overwhelmed the existing system, capturing one or both political parties, or bringing forth new parties. There followed a “critical election,” in which the stakes were particularly high; turnout and involvement was intense; the differences between the parties on issues were great; and the outcome was clear and decisive. The result was a realignment of the party system around new (or transformed) parties and the implementation of a new set of public policies by the newly elected coalition.

The key step in the realignment process was the capture of one of the major parties by extremist elements and a polarization of the party system. This polarization of the party system was followed within a short period by the critical election itself. Once the polarization began, realignment followed quickly.

In this polarization process, the Supreme Court played a major role. As the critical issue built in intensity, one or both sides expressed the issue in constitutional terms. In the slavery crisis, for example, both sides appealed to the Constitution to support their position on slavery in the territories. The Republicans suggested that the Constitution required the abolition of slavery in the territories; Southern Democrats took the opposite view and argued that the Constitution made it impossible for Congress to ban slavery in the territories. Similarly, in the New Deal period, the Republican Party claimed that Franklin Roosevelt's policies violated the Constitution. Once the issue became infused with a constitutional dimension, both sides turned to the Supreme Court; win or lose, a High Court decision on the issue made the moderate compromise positions less and less tenable.

Typically the Supreme Court was reluctant to take on the constitutional issue, preferring to accept moderate, compromise solutions and to defer to Congress. The reason is clear: the justices, appointed by the major parties over the decades before the realignment, themselves reflected the moderate political leadership of those parties (see Selection of Justices). For decades before Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), for example, the Court simply ducked the slavery issue. In the same way, the justices in the pre‐New Deal party system found ways of sustaining most, if not all, federal economic legislation. The justices, however, were under the same pressures as their counterparts in the political system; the same triggering events that begin to polarize the parties prompted one or more of the justices to shift from the center to a more radical position. The result was a constitutional decision on the critical issue that vindicated the position of one or the other of the extremist groups. More importantly, such a decision made compromise on the critical issue impossible, since centrist positions were in effect declared unconstitutional as well. The Dred Scott decision, for example, declared unconstitutional not only the Republican position on slavery, but also Stephen Douglas's compromise concept of popular sovereignty. Abraham Lincoln masterfully exploited the weakness of Douglas's position after Dred Scott.

The Court's decision set in motion a process by which the extremist forces dominated the field, producing a critical election. The Supreme Court's decisions striking down New Deal legislation in 1935 and 1936, for example, resulted in both the strengthening of the anti‐New Deal forces in the Republican Party and the clear shift to the left by Roosevelt prior to the 1936 election. The critical election of that year settled the issue (or, in the 1850s case, made it clear that the issue could not be settled politically); the resulting partisan alignment then persisted for another generation or more, until the cycle repeated itself.

Critical issues are, by definition, issues of such magnitude or intensity that they cannot be resolved by the judicial branch. The Court's attempt to resolve the slavery issue in Dred Scott, like its attempt to block the New Deal, was in vain. The voice of the people, expressed in a critical election, eventually pulled the Supreme Court along with it. The Supreme Court, for example, switched immediately after the election of 1936 and placed its stamp of approval on the New Deal (see Court‐Packing Plan).

These realignment scenarios may lead to the conclusion that the Supreme Court follows the election returns. In these exceedingly rare critical realignments, this old adage has merit. It is, however, just as important to remember that few presidential elections center around an issue that involves the Supreme Court; most of the time, there are no election returns for the Supreme Court to follow. Thus, in general the Court is remarkably free to decide as it wishes. Of course, since the Court is recruited from and appointed by the dominant political parties, they are unlikely to oppose major policies of the national government. Still, only rarely do the people directly impose their views on the Court.

The relationship between the Court and the party system is no longer as clear as it once was. With major changes in the American political system since the New Deal, the pattern of stability and change inherent in the critical realignment model no longer seems to characterize American politics. The tremendous growth in the federal government and its activist role in economic and social policy have made it far more responsive to demands for change than it once was and have perhaps transformed the underlying basis of the realignment model. The result is a weakened party system given to gradual rather than dramatic transformations and an indirect relationship between the party system and the Court.

A typical system, and the U.S. system

In most democracies the electorate vote for a party. The party members develop an agenda, and nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda. The party is funded by a nominal membership fee, and contributions from the state for the cost of campaigning. The contribution may be in relation to the membership, the votes in the previous election, or similar. The party is not allowed to receive other contributions, a rule intended to prevent plutocracy. Parties may be grass-roots organizations with a bottom-up decision-making process, or top controlled, but in either case it is the party who sets the agenda and nominates the candidates for the ballots. In some cases the voter can mark individual names, in others he can only vote for a pre-determined set of names.

The U.S. system is completely different as it was designed for a situation without parties. In the U.S. it is the candidate who decides under what party he should run, registers to run, pays the fees, etc. In the primaries the party organization stays neutral until one candidate has been elected. The platform of the party is written by the winning candidate (in presidential elections; in other elections no platform is involved). Each candidate has his or her own campaign, fund raising organization, etc. The primary elections in the main parties is organized by the states, who also registers the party affiliation of the voters (this also makes it easier to gerrymander the congressional districts). The party is thus little more than a campaign organization for the main elections.

Giovanni Sartori devised the most widely used classification method for party systems. He suggested that party systems should be classified by the number of relevant parties and the degree of fragmentation (as caused by differing ideology). Party systems can thus be distinguished by the effective number of parties.^[2]

Canada

According to recent scholarship there have been at least three party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies.^[3] Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history^[4]

The first party system emerged from pre-Confederation colonial politics, had its "heyday" from 1896 to 1911 and lasted until the Conscription Crisis of 1917, and was characterized by local patronage administered by the two largest parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The second system emerged following the First World War, and had its heyday from 1935 and 1957, was characterized by regionalism and saw the emergence of several protest parties, such as the Progressives, the Social Credit Party, and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.
The third system emerged in 1963 and had its heyday from 1968 to 1983 and began to unravel thereafter. The two largest parties were challenged by a strong third party, the New Democratic Party. Campaigns during this era became more national in scope due to the electronic media, and involved a greater focus on leadership. The dominant policy of the era was Keynesian economics.
The fourth party system has involved the rise of the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. It saw most parties move to one-member-one-vote leadership contests, and a major reform to campaign finance laws in 2004. The dominant policy themes have been neo-liberal economics, and the social investment state.

U.S. models

The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in American Commonwealth (1885).

American Party Systems was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in 1920s. In 1967 the most important single breakthrough appeared, The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers published The First Party System in 1972. Burnham published numerous articles and books. Closely related is the concept of critical elections (introduced by V. O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."

A political science college textbook explains:

"Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: 1. 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; 2. 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; 3. 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 4. 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 5. 1932-, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans."^[5]

According to Marjorie Hershey, there have been at least six different party systems throughout the history of the United States:

First Party System: This system can be considered to have developed as a result of the factions in the George Washington administration. The two factions were Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued for a strong national government with a national bank and a strong economic and industry system. The Anti-Federalists argued for a limited government, with a more emphasis on farmers and states' rights. After the 1800 Presidential election, the Anti-Federalists (later known as the Democratic-Republicans) gained major dominance for the next twenty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.

Second Party System: This system developed as a result of the one party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of this system came the Whig Party. Wealthier people tended to support the Whigs, and the less fortunate tended to support the Democrats. The Democrats dominated this era, but the party began to break apart into factions, mainly over the issue of slavery.

Third Party System: Beginning around the time of the start of the Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most evidently defined by geography. The South was dominated by the Democrats, and the North, with the exception of some major political machines, was dominated by the Republicans. This era was a time of extreme industrial and economic expansion.

Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and immigration. The Democrats wanted to work with these newly arrived immigrants, while the Republicans strongly disliked working with them.

Fifth Party System: This is the system defined by the New Deal programs. The Republican’s response to the Great Depression caused them to lose support from minorities and the poor. The Democrats in this era received much support and were in power in Congress for a substantial amount of time. This era lasted approximately until around 1968.

The sixth party system is still currently developing today, and began with the Democrats losing the South in the late 1960’s. The sectional era of the parties seemed to end the dominance in the south, but created a Republican dominance in the south as shown by election results today.^[6]

Notes

^ Sartori (1976); Lipset and Rokkan (1967); Karvonen and Kuhnle (2000)
^ Sartori (1976)
^ Gagnon and Tanguay, 2007: 1
^ Patten, 2007: 57-58
^ Robert C. Benedict, Matthew J. Burbank and Ronald J. Hrebenar, Political Parties, Interest Groups and Political Campaigns. Westview Press. 1999. Page 11.
^ Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America 12th ed. 2007: Longman Classics in Political Science. pages 119-123

Bibliography

Belloc, Hilaire, and Cecil Chesterton. The Party System'. (1911) online edition, on British politics
Patten, Steve (2007). "The Evolution of the Canadian Party System". in Gagnon, Alain-G., Tanguay, A. Brain. Canadian Parties in Transition (3rd ed. ed.). Broadview. pp. 55–81. ISBN 978-1-55111-785-0.
Gagon, Alain-G.; Tanguay, A. Brain (2007). "Introduction". in Gagnon, Alain-G., Tanguay, A. Brain. Canadian Parties in Transition (3rd ed. ed.). Broadview. pp. 1–14. ISBN 978-1-55111-785-0.
Karvonen, Lauri, and Stein Kuhnle, eds. Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited (2000) updates on Lipset and Rokkan (1967) excerpt and text search
Lewis, Paul G. and Paul Webb, eds. Pan-European Perspectives on Party Politics (2003)
Lipset, Seymour M. and Stein Rokkan, eds. Party Systems And Voter Alignments (1967)
Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (1996)
Mair, Peter, ed. The West European Party System (Oxford University Press, 1990) online excerpt pp. 302-310
Meleshevich, Andrey A. Party Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: A Comparative Study of Political Institutionalization in the Baltic States, Russia, and Ukraine (2007)
Sartori, Giovanni . Parties and Party Systems: A framework for analysis (1976; reprint in 2005)
Tan, Alexander C. Emerging Party Systems (2005)
Walch, James. Faction and Front: Party Systems in South India (1976)

United States

Bartley, Numan V. "Voters and Party Systems: A Review of the Recent Literature," The History Teacher, Vol. 8, No. 3 (May, 1975), pp. 452-469. online at JSTOR
Beck, Paul Allen. "Micropolitics in Macro Perspective: the Political History of Walter Dean Burnham." Social Science History 1986 10(3): 221-245. Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor
Brady, David, and Joseph Stewart, Jr. "Congressional Party Realignment and Transformations of Public Policy in Three Realignment Eras," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 333-360 online at JSTOR Looks at links among cross-cutting issues, electoral realignments, the U.S. House and public policy changes during the Civil War, 1890s and New Deal realignments. In each case the policy changes are voted through by a partisan "new" majority party. The Civil War and 1890s realignments were more polarized than was the New Deal realignment, and the extent of party structuring of issue dimensions was greater.
Burnham, Walter Dean. "Periodization Schemes and 'Party Systems': The 'System of 1896' as a Case in Point" Social Science History, Vol. 10, No. 3, 263-314.
William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds. The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, (1967)
Chambers, William Nisbet. Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809 (1963)
Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1970)
James, Scott C. Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884-1936 (2000)
Jensen, Richard. "American Election Analysis: A Case History of Methodological Innovation and Diffusion," in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969), 226-43.
Jensen, Richard. "History and the Political Scientist," in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969), , 1-28.
Jensen, Richard. "Historiography of Political History," in Jack Greene ed., Encyclopedia of American Political History (Scribners, 1984), 1:1-25. online
Jensen, Richard. "The Changing Shape of Burnham's Political Universe," Social Science History 10 (1986) 209-19 Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor
Renda, Lex. "Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System." Reviews in American History (1995) 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse.

External links

Party Systems (article at Citizendium).
A detailed bibliography

v • d • e Political eras of the United States of America

First Party System \| Second Party System \| Third Party System \| Fourth Party System \| Fifth Party System

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

Copyrights:

		Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more
		Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more
		Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Party system". Read more

	France is a one-party system? Read answer...
	To adopt or not the Bi party system over the Multi party system in the Philippine? Read answer...
	Disadvantage of two party system? Read answer...

	To adopt or not the bi party system or the multi party system?
	What are the merits and demerits of two party system and multi party system?
	Advantages and disadvantages of two party system and multi party system?