NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org)

John K. White, Catholic University

Experts

John Aldrich Duke University 919-660-4346 Aspects of campaigns and elections, political parties, Congress Bruce E. Altschuler SUNY Oswego 315-312-3451 Presidency, campaigns and elections, New York state politics, political parties John C. Berg Suffolk University 617-573-8126 Barry C. Burden Harvard University 617-495-4249 Voter turnout, third parties, campaigns, surveys, primaries William J. Crotty Northeastern University 617-373-2877 Political parties, electoral behavior, political behavior, representation Roger Davidson University of Maryland 805-898-9176 Congress, public opinion and government  John C. Green University of Akron 330-972-5182 Religion and politics, parties, campaign finance Paul Herrnson University of Maryland- College Park 301-405-4123 Congress, campaign finance, parties, elections, campaign ethics David Kimball University of Missouri- St. Louis 314-516-6050 Voting equipment, voting behavior, political parties Robin Kolodny Temple University 215-204-7709 Sandy Maisel Colby College 207-859-5307 Congressional elections, candidate recruitment, third parties, redistricting, Jewish candidates Michael Margolis University of Cincinnati 513-556-3310 Internet and electoral politics Quin Monson Brigham Young University 801-422-8017 Pippa Norris Harvard University 617-495-1475 Comparative elections worldwide Gerald Pomper Rutgers University 732-932-9384 Elections, voting behavior, parties, U.S. consititution, Jews and American politics Chapman Rackaway  Fort Hays State University  785-628-5391 Campaign process and strategy, youth voting and civic engagement, Kansas and Missouri state politics

Defining political parties is a task that seems relatively simple. In 1984, Robert Huckshorn provided what he called "a pragmatic definition": "[A] political party is an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government."(1)

But embedded within any definition of a political party are several normative assumptions about what parties are and are not-and, even more frequently, what they should be. For example, if parties are to be "mediating institutions" between the governors and the governed, then what tasks should they be performing? Should they be election facilitators who provide candidates with ballot access? Or, do they exist to promote ideas? And what of the voters? Do they, or should they, behave in an entirely rational manner, thus making parties objects of political utility? Or, do voters eschew parties altogether and bring other considerations into making their ballot selections?

During the past fifty years, there has emerged a passionate consensus that vibrant political parties are essential to successful governance, and two especially important party paradigms have emerged in the twentieth century: the rational-efficient model and the responsible parties model.

First advocated by Anthony Downs, the rational-efficient model emphasizes the parties' electoral activities at the expense of virtually all other functions. Winning elections is the principal raison d'etre for the party establishment. Voters also act rationally, using the information provided by the party candidates to make selections that will benefit them personally.

As political parties wane in influence, Downs's rational-choice model has become the choice de jour among political scientists. According to the Social Sciences Citation Index, since the 1980s mentions of Downs's path-breaking book, An Economic Theory of Democracy, have steadily risen.(2)

During the 20th century, the American Political Science Association's Committee on Political Parties became the primary advocate for the responsible parties model. In 1950, the committee issued a report that stated: "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."(3) Achieving party unity matters because (1) it gives voters a clear choice in election campaigns; (2) it gives the winning political party a mandate for governing; and (3) it ensures the party as the likely instrument whereby voters can make a legal revolution.

But in the Information Age, many scholars argue that political parties aren't what they used to be. At once, the Internet has leveled the playing field, as information becomes instantaneously available to party producers and consumers. Parties are no longer the primary filter of political information. Instead, they are just one provider-among many-of several different types of information that are available on the World Wide Web. As parties adapt to these new conditions, new definitions-replete with new assumptions about their functions-are likely to shape the ongoing debate about their roles and functions in the 21st century.

The 2004 elections provide some interesting clues to future party developments. During the Democratic presidential primaries, former Vermont governor Howard Dean pioneered the use of the Internet as a fund-raising and organizational tool. Dean raised millions of dollars over the Internet, most of it in small, individual dollar amounts. By December of 2003, Dean led all of his rivals in dollars raised. He also used the Internet community titled "Meet Up" to convene gatherings of local followers in hundreds of communities and used them as the organization blocs for his campaign. Dean also took advantage of the weblog, as "bloggers" who supported Dean's candidacy encouraged each other and gave the Dean campaign their advice on tactics and strategy. Dean's use of the Internet has been emulated by Democratic nominee John Kerry. After Dean's candidacy imploded in Iowa, Kerry raised millions over the Internet-including nearly six million dollars during the prime-time hour in which he delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. For his part, Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush has relied on more traditional methods to advance his candidacy-including large fund-raisers who won the title of "Rangers" or "Mavericks" depending on how much money they funneled to the Bush campaign. But Bush has also seen the advantages in a more interactive Internet community and solicited individual contributions over the Internet as well, started his own weblog, and set up internet neighborhood-based communities of supporters.

These tactics have helped to solidify the relatively even partisan divisions within the United States. During the 2004 campaign, much has been written about the intense partisanship surrounding the presidential race. America was said to be divided into two regions: red states that tend to vote reliably Republican, and blue states that often vote Democratic. This partisan division produced the "perfect tie" in 2000, when George W. Bush won the Electoral College vote (due to the intervention of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore after the disputed popular vote count in Florida), while Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote. Despite the tragedies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the intense and close partisan divisions between Republicans and Democrats have persisted.

In many ways, the intense partisanship has spurred party development. The major parties are relying upon newly developed organizational skills which the Internet has helped facilitate. Both Republicans and Democrats, for example, maintain active voter files containing millions of names of people who are their loyal supporters. Both have emulated the presidential campaigns in using the Internet to raise large sums of money. And both have sophisticated web pages and lists of millions of email addresses that are designed to communicate effectively and instantaneously to their followers. Instead of weakening parties, the 2004 election seems to be strengthening the party-in-the-electorate.

That reinforcement has also fortified both the party-in-government and the party organizations. As the partisan division between the red and blue states has strengthened, party platforms have become more polarized. Perhaps more than any other president, George W. Bush has given the American voters the closest resemblance to the 1950 APSA-sponsored ideal of responsible party government. Notwithstanding the closeness of the 2000 election, Bush got his mostly Republican-dominated Congress to pass his tax cut proposals; enact his platform promise of a vast reform of the nation's education system, with congressional approval of the "No Child Left Behind Law," and enactment of a prescription drug benefit costing billions of dollars. While the outcome of the 2004 election remains uncertain as of this writing, it is clear that the two major parties are in the process of being revitalized. How this process plays out in the years ahead will help answer many questions and alter once more the party definitions employed by scholars.

John White is professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. He can be reached at white@cua.edu and 202-319-6136.

Notes:
1. Robert Huckshorn, Political Parties in America (Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1984), p. 10.

2. Martin P.Wattenberg, The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 18.

3. APSA Committee on Political Parties, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System (New York: Rinehart, 1950), p. 1.

Recent Publications on Political Parties

Bernstein, Jonathan and Casey B. K. Dominguez. 2003. "Candidates and Candidacies in the Expanded Party." PS: Political Science and Politics 36:2 (April): 165-169.

Green, John C. and Paul S. Herrnson, eds. 2002. Responsible Partisanship? The Evolution of American Political Parties Since 1950. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Jackson, R.A., and T. M. Carsey. 2002. "Group Effects On Party Identification And Party Coalitions Across The United States." American Politics Research 30:1 (January):66-92.

Lindaman, Kara and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2002. "Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars." Political Research Quarterly 55:1 (March).

Lockerbie, B. 2002. "Party Identification: Constancy and Change." American Politics Research 30:4 (July):384-405.

Wright, Gerald C. and Brian Schaffner. 2002. "The Influence of Party: Evidence from the State Legislatures." American Political Science Review 96:2 (June).

Crotty, William and John S. Jackson. 2001. The Politics of Presidential Selection (2nd ed.). New York: Longman Publishers.

Jones, David R. 2001. "Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock." Political Research Quarterly (March).

Shipan, Charles R. and William R. Lowry. 2001. "Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress" Political Research Quarterly 54:2 (June).

Abramson, Paul and John Aldrich, Philip Paolino, and David Rohde. 2000. "Challenges to the American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 Presidential Election." Political Research Quarterly 53:3 (September).

Reichley, A. James. 2000. The Life of the Parties. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Aldrich, John. 1999. "Political Parties in a Critical Era." American Politics Quarterly 27:1 (January).

APSA Committee on Political Parties. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. New York: Rinehart.