ORIGIN AND NATURE OF POLITICAL PARTIES: OVERVIEW

I.         A system of free elections almost always leads to political party formation and thus to a party system of some type [an empirical proposition that almost all political scientists believe is true]

II.        Concept of a political party: a collaboration/concerted action, not among rank-and-file voters, but among politicians (elective office holders or seekers) — “a conspiracy of politicians” (E.E. Schattschneider)

            A. dimensions of collaboration

                        1. over geographical areas (e.g., an alliance across U.S. states, Congressional Districts, parliamentary districts)

                        2. over time (unlike individual politicians, a party endures over many elections)

                        3. over issues (unlike most interest groups, a party take stands over a wide range of issues)

            B. collaboration to advance what goals? some mixture of following motivations

                        1. motivations that entail strategic behavior to create a “church” (or “big tent”)

                                    a. office-seeking (to win elections, hold office, dispense patronage)

                                    b. policy-seeking (to advance policy goals)

                        2. motivation that entails non-strategic behavior to preserve a “sect”

                                    a. ideology-expressing (to educate electorate by “sticking to principles”)

            C. the most fundamental kind of collaboration is the nominating function

                        1. so as not to split the vote of their natural supporters (in single-winner elections), e.g., Tideman example and “spoilers”

            D. parties vs. interest groups: only parties nominate candidates and takes stands on a wide range of issues

III. E. E. Schattscheider’s (Party Government) theory of strategic party formation

            A. start with a “pristine” legislature that

                        1. is elective (perhaps less inclusive than universal suffrage)

                        2. operates under majority rule (in any event, less than unanimity rule)

            B. the dispersion and concentration of votes

                        1. organized legislative caucus (“social contract” among members) agrees on

                                    a. a common position (nominee, issue position, platform)

                                    b. supported by a bloc/concentrated vote

                        2. caucus organization provokes counter-organization

                                    a. caucus expansion until majority vs. minority caucus)

                                    b. minimal winning coalition (Riker’s size principle)

            C. majority vs. minority caucus: options for minority

                        1. break up majority caucus with

                                    a. promised rewards for defectors (Sen. Jeffords in Spring 2001)

                                    b. split majority (“wedge issue”)

                        2. transform minority caucus into a political party

                                    a. example: Jefferson vs. Hamilton

                                    b. socialization of conflict

            D. majority vs. minority party: options for minority

                        1. appeal to “undecided” or marginal voters

                        2. break up majority party with wedge issue and/or targeted appeals

                        3. expand/mobilize electorate

IV.      A competitive party system — perhaps especially a two-party — provides important benefits for rank-and-file voters [a normative proposition endorsed by many but certainly not all political scientists]

            A. Parties coordinate the voting choices of like-minded voters [cf. Tideman example].

B. Parties offer voters familiar labels or “brand names” so that they can make reasonable voting choice even if they know little or nothing about the particular candidates running in a given election in a given district.

            C. Parties want to protect the reputation of their “brand names”

            D. Parties structure electoral debate (like opposing lawyers before an inexpert jury).

            E. Parties promote accountability because the incumbent party can be held accountable for its record in office (even if incumbent officials are not running for re-election).

                        1. British “Westminster model”/ “elective autocracy”

                        2. “responsible party government model”

F. A party seeking to get more votes (to win office or promote policies) has an incentive to try to figure out what would please large numbers (at least a majority) of voters and enact policies accordingly.

            G. Competing parties seeking to win elections try to mobilize potential supporters and thus boost voting turnout.