Skip to main content

Parties and Governance: Making Divided Government Work

  • Chapter
Political Parties in American Society

Abstract

Parties, as we have seen, are organizations playing a major role again today in the election of leaders — presidents, congresspersons, senators, and state and local officials. They are political action structures that mobilize money, support, and votes on behalf of their candidates for public offices. They do this in sharp competition with each other, year in and year out. But if they are to be key actors in the system, they aspire to play a significant role in presidential and legislative performance after the election. They normally seek at least three types of relevance: (1) to represent their followers, who supported them in the campaign; (2) to achieve their policy objectives outlined in the campaign; (3) to enhance their prospects for reelection, to retain power and attempt to increase it. Thus, representation, policy making, and power maximization are three key functions parties seek to achieve in the legislature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Quoted by Senator Fred Harris in “A Nationalized and Individualized Senate,” Extensions (Fall 1997), Carl Albert Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  2. William J. Keefe, Congress and the American People (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), 101–5. See also Thomas E. Cronin, The State of the Presidency (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  3. David Truman, The Congressional Party (New York: Wiley, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  4. David Mayhew, The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 27.

    Google Scholar 

  5. For a good description of these events, see David Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Post Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 17–34.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbara Sinclair, “The Congressional Party: Evolving Organizational, Agenda Setting and Policy Roles,” In L. Sandy Maisel, The Parties Respond (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990), 246.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rohde, Parties and Leaders, 173, for a discussion of this view. See also Leroy Rieselbach Congressional Reform (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1986); and Burton D. Sheppard, Rethinking Congressional Reform (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  8. David Rohde, “‘The Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated’: Parties and Party Voting in the House of Representatives,” in Glenn R. Parker, ed., Changing Perspectives on Congress (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1990), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gary Cox and Matthew McCubbins, Legislative Leviathon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 144–57.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid., 154–55.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edward R. Tufte, Political Control of the Economy (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 71.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., 101–2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Douglas Hibbs, “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy,” American Political Science Review 71 (1977): 1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Benjamin Ginsberg, “Elections and Public Policy,” American Political Science Review 70 (1976): 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. John Kingdon, Congressmen’s Voting Decisions (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 135.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barbara Greenberg, “New York Congressmen and the Local Party Organization,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bruce Cain, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina, The Personal Vote (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 52–59, 60.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson W Polsby, “Political Change and the Character of the Contemporary Congress,” in Anthony King, ed., The New American Political System (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, “Party Government and the Salency of Congress,” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962): 531–46; “Constituency Influence in Congress,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. See Philip E. Converse and Roy Pierce, Political Representation in France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 674.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Kenneth Janda, “Comparative Political Parties: Research and Theory,” in Ada Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II (Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 1993), 173.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power (New York: Wiley, 1960), 181.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., 33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Paul A Beck, Party Politics in America, (New York: Longman, 1996), 350.

    Google Scholar 

  25. President Kennedy’s speech to the National Press Club, January 14, 1960. Quoted in Robert H. Blank, Political Parties: An Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), 183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2000 Bedford/St. Martin’s

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eldersveld, S.J., Walton, H. (2000). Parties and Governance: Making Divided Government Work. In: Political Parties in American Society. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-11290-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-11290-3_15

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-62492-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-11290-3

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics