Course Description

This course is designed as an introduction to the nature and function of American political parties. Its central theme is the role that political parties play as intermediary institutions between the public and their elected officials.

The course is crudely divided into three topical areas. First, we examine the United States’ constitutional checks on the development of strong, ideologically cohesive national parties and how ambitious politicians have formed party organizations in response to those checks. Second, we investigate the relationship between political parties and the electorate, with a particular focus on how the activity of partisan elites impacts mass behavior and attitudes. Third, we study the role of parties in the organization of the national legislature.

For each topical area, readings and discussion will begin with classic arguments for or against the presence of ideological disciplined national parties. Subsequent assignments then examine the extent to which the American party system has lived up to the prescriptions of the classical theorists at different points in its history.

Please note that given the social scientific sensibilities of the instructor, many of the readings in the course are quite technical. A student unwilling to take the time to puzzle through statistical tables or basic formal (read: mathematical) political theory should find another course.

Evaluative Criteria

Your deliverables for the class are negotiable. But for most students, your grades will be based on the following items:

- 2 short papers: each 25% of your grade

One approximately 1500 word paper will be due at the end of each full month of the quarter. Papers should apply the key ideas and concepts from one of the topical areas for the month to current events, American history, or a subject from some other course. Graduate students are particularly encouraged and expected to explore bridges between the parties literature and other subjects. A successful effort will clearly identify why their topic is important, succinctly present the theoretical perspective developed in the readings and class, and demonstrate the relevance of that theory to their case.

- Class Presentation and Participation: 25% of your grade

Each student is expected to lead class for one day during the quarter. The classroom leader’s responsibility will be to ensure that the other students (and your Professor) leave the class with knowledge of the central theoretical claims the author(s) advanced in the readings, the arguments that they used to support their claims with particular attention played to the strengths and weaknesses of research design, and how these ideas relate to the big picture.

Needless to say, when students are not leading the class, they are expected to be attentive listeners and active participants in discussion. Poor attendance and a lack of preparation for class will badly effect your grade.

- Take Home Final Examination: 25 % of your grade

You will be asked to answer the following question: Critically evaluate one and only one rationale for strong parties in the American political system. Be careful to define what you mean by a “strong party.” You may begin writing your answer now. Your answer may be no longer than 1300 words.

Style Guidelines

For written assignments, you must obey a handful of easy to understand formatting guidelines. Your assignments must be:

- Typed with a standard 12 point font

- Double-Spaced

- One inch margins on all sides of the paper

If your work does not meet these guidelines, it will not be graded. That means you will get a failing grade.

Late Work

I hate late assignments. For your papers, unless you have a note from the dean explaining that you have been incapacitated every day from January 7^th through the assignment’s due date, your grade will be marked down a full letter grade for every day late. No late final exams or class presentations will be accepted without a dean’s excuse.

Books

The following books should be available for purchase at the Seminary Coop.

Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System. Paperback. University of California Press. 1990.

John Aldrich, Why Parties? Paperback. University of Chicago Press. 1995.

Angus Campbell, et al. The American Voter. Unabridged Edition. Paperback. University of Chicago Press. 1980.

David Mayhew. Divided We Govern. Paperback. Yale University Press. 1993.

David Rohde. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Paperback. University of Chicago Press. 1991.

All other materials should be available through links to the online course syllabus.

Reading List (subject to change at the instructor’s discretion—Texts not available from Seminary Coop can be downloaded through links to the course home page—http://home.uchicago.edu/~grynav/app03.htm)

January 7. Introduction

Party Organization

January 9. A Constitution Against Parties. (Class Notes—PowerPoint)

Madison, Federalist 10

Madison, Federalist 51

Washington’s Farewell Address (Optional)

Begin Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System

January 14. The Founders’ Views of Parties

Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System

January 16. Institutional Models of Parties

Aldrich, Why Parties? Part I.

January 21. The First American Parties

Aldrich, Why Parties? Part II.

January 23. Political Parties and Party Activists

Aldrich, Why Parties? Part II.

McClocky, et al, 1960. “Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers,” APSR pp. 361-382.

Party in the Electorate

January 28. Introduction to Party-in-the-Electorate

Lowell, 1913. “Advertisement and Brokerage” and “The Falsification of Public Opinion.” In Public Opinion and Popular Government.

January 30. Party Identification.

Campbell, et al, The American Voter. Section 3.

February 4. Alternative Models of Partisan Choice.

Converse, 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent. ed. David Apter.

Downs, “The Development of Political Ideologies as a Means of Getting Votes,” and “The Statics and Dynamics of Party Ideologies.” In An Economic Theory of Democracy.

Hinich and Munger, “Theory and Evidence on Spatial Models of Ideology” and “Empirical Models Based on the Theory of Ideology.” In Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. (Optional)

February 6. The Decline of Parties Thesis

Wattenberg, 1981. “The Decline of Political Partisanship in the United States: Negativity or Neutrality.” APSR pp. 941-950.

Fiorina, 1980. “The Decline of Collective Responsibility,” Daedalus.

February 7. First Paper Due.

February 11. The First Revisionist School of Partisan Identification.

Key, “The Voice of the People: An Echo” and “Standpatters, Switchers, New Voters.” In The Responsible Electorate.

Fiorina. 1977. “An Outline for a Model of Party Choice.” AJPS pp. 601-625.

Niemi and Jennings, 1991. “Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification.” AJPS pp. 970-988.

Franklin and Jackson, 1983. “The Dynamics of Partisan Identification.” APSR 957-973. (Optional)

February 13. The Second Revisionist School of Partisan Identification.

Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson, “Macropartisanship” and “Decomposing Partisan Change.” In The Macro Polity.

February 18. Split-Ticket Voting

Grofman, et al, 1999. “A New Look at Split Ticket Outcome for House and President: The Comparative Midpoints Model.” JOP

Rusk, 1970. “The Effects of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908” APSR.

Beck, et al, 1992. “Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting.” APSR

Fiorina, 1992. “An Era of Divided Government,” PSQ. (Optional)

February 20. The Return of Party-In-Electorate

Bartels, 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” AJPS.

Hetherington, 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship.” APSR.

Jacobson, 2000. “The Electoral Basis of Partisan Polarization in Congress-Text” and “The Electoral Basis of Partisan Polarization in Congress-Figures.” APSA Conference Paper.

Party-in-Government

February 25. Introduction to Party-in-Government

Wilson, 1887. “The Problem of Public Administration.” PSQ

Wilson. “The House of Representatives.” In Congressional Government.

Krehbiel, 1996. “Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: a theory of divided and unified government.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 7-39.

February 27. Divided Government I.

Mayhew, Divided We Govern

March 4. Divided Government II.

Edwards, et al, 1997. “The Legislative Impact of Divided Government.” AJPS

Jones, et al, 1997. “Does Incrementalism Stem from Political Consensus or Institutional Deadlock?” AJPS.

Begin Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House

March 6. Conditional Party Government I.

Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House

March 7. Second Paper Due

March 11. Conditional Party Government II.

Aldrich, Berger, Rohde, 2001. “Historical Variability in Conditional Party Government-Text” and “Historical Variability in Conditional Party Government-Figures.” Conference Paper.

Krehbiel, 1993. “Where’s the Party?” British Journal of Political Science

Schickler and Rich, 1997. “Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House” AJPS (optional—www.jstor.org)

Cox and McCubbins, 1997. “Toward a Theory of Legislative Rules Changes: Assessing Schickler and Rich’s Evidence.” AJPS (optional—www.jstor.org)

Schickler and Rich, 1997. “Party Government in the House Reconsidered: A Response to Cox and McCubbins” AJPS (optional—www.jstor.org)

March 13. Wrap-Up

Aldrich, Why Parties? Chapters 7 and 8.