Blog Discussion Group Four
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Feb. 13 and comment due at 11:55pm on Feb. 16.
Political Parties and Party Systems
Political Parties and Party Systems
- Is the
- Are political parties an adequate or inadequate vehicle for channeling political opinions and actions? Is it better to be an independent voter rather than one who identifies with a party?
- Are political parties important to the functioning of a democracy?
Interest Groups
- Discuss evidence for and against the proposition: “All political conflicts—including ethnic, religions, gender, and generational conflicts—ultimately boil down to class conflicts. Rich people tend to be politically favored and poor people are not, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, or age.”
- Are interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
Political parties are an imperative part of the functioning of a democracy. Around the world democratic parties continuously perform essential functions such as: mobilizing ordinary citizens through voting or achieving a goal, recruiting/socializing leaders, providing a long-lasting sense of party identification, providing a means for party leaders to control rank, and providing links between branches/levels of government. In other words, parties in democratic nations provide a relationship between the government and the citizens. Political parties have many functions as well as multiple purposes in a democratic nation. Some of these purposes are: allowing citizens to organize political activity, developing out of differences about how to achieve common goals, wanting to have an impact on public policy, and putting forward leaders in government. The emphasis that is put on political parties is that they are "multilevel organizations, with their various strata united by a common identity and, sometimes, shared objectives" (Hague and Harrop 171). Citizens being able to put their leaders in various levels/forms of government allow for them to indirectly have voice. This is because the leader that the citizens voted to put in power share common values and policy. It also allows for representation of multiple parties with differing perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI believe interest groups provide a little bit of good and bad for politics, it is all about how you look at it. You can say having multiple interest groups will give everyone a voice, allow everyone to find something they support and make people believe they have a voice within government decisions. However some interest groups are controversial and cause arguments between the groups. One of the most recent controversial interest group is the NRA (National Riffle Association). The main issue with interest groups in politics is everyday a new one is born, because there is always a group to go against a group that already exists. So people are not feeling that their voices are heard anymore, they feel they are being ignored. These groups are not winning their space through politics and debate, social media and the media in general is their fighting ground.
ReplyDeleteI do believe there are too many interest groups, and with the visibility of social media it allows them to grow in numbers everyday making it become out of control. I do believe some interest groups have a space in politics, but it has to be controlled, there needs to be a way to organize them, and allow only certain categories to be discussed during candidacy or election time. During the last election it didn't feel like some candidates actually had a group they supported, however they chose to support the interest group that went against their opponent. We need these groups to find a voice in the democracy, but we need to maintain control of how this power is used.
Democracy is defined as the system of government by the whole population or all eligible members of state. The representative is elected in a democracy. I think that having political parties are important to the democracy because they help organize the relationship between the government and the citizens. It is becoming vital in the new era because "Wherever this life of parties is developed, it focuses the political feelings and the active wills of its citizens"(Hauge and Harrop 169). By this statement it shows that political parties give the citizens chance to be in the loop of things that are going on. They allow voters to choose parties with different views. The two parties we have here in the U.S. are democratic and republican, this gives people different viewpoints and allows them to pick a certain side that they want to follow. So that being said the citizens of that country get to elect who represents their side, which then through a voting process is elected to run the country.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that parties are an adequate choice in government. When looking how parities work they dominate politics and people end up voting for parties rather than policy. another problem with parties is that a large majority of people do not identify with a party and many will not vote and I feel that the parties do not give a chance to anybody to run. I believe that It is good to have an independent ideal as a voter and that people should be willing to change their party if it does not suite their ideology. However I also believe that it is always better to vote over not voting and voters should vote for the better of the two choices
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness I couldn't agree more!! Numerous studies and exit polling data shows that people are influenced by factors which really shouldn't filter into their voting habits. Things such as name recognition and party identification, single issue voters all of which are dominant and ignorant forms of voting behaviors. Single issue voters typically have a strong unwavering stance on a particular issue and will vote exclusively for politicians based on having a shared stance. While I think that's a really limited approach its still a step in the right direction in contrast to name recognition and/or party identification. In those two instances people are no longer voting for policy at all. Regardless of particular policy questions they are voting blindly according to names that sound familiar (which is paid for through ad campaigns and gives incumbents an overwhelming advantage) and through longstanding party affiliation. Thankfully recent trends show voters have increasingly become "independents" which counteracts the harmful effects of a dominating two-party system. In this way voters particularly younger, more educated populations, are seriously considering policies over politics.
DeleteUnited States politics is dominated by a "power elite" which are the wealthy. The individuals who possess great wealth are able to control the government because every politician wants those funds backing them. Therefore they will make concessions to the rich people who back them. This effectively gives the wealthy power in government without actually holding office. The access to wealth like this helps politicians fund their campaigns and helps to reach citizens all across the country. That is why the Democratic and Republican parties rule American politics because they have the backing of wealthy individuals who can also provide different connections throughout media. The masses still matter in the sense that they still elect an individual into office, but the wealth has an overwhelming effect on the populace. They can control what we see on TV by funding commercial campaigns that can change our opinion of a candidate or skew our perception of another. Just think how many times a commercial on TV has become known as the public perception of a person. That is the type of power that the wealthy possess and it shows with how our politics work today. Even if a candidate states that they are the champion of the common folk they will still need the funds and connections provided by wealthy individuals if they are to have a chance at winning their election. It is clear that money runs politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that you make. It is very expensive to run a campaign for any office, whether it be for president or even city election. So, it is much easier for someone who is wealthy to run for office. However, even if someone is not as wealthy, they could still run for office. All they need to do is get endorsements and backing from various people/companies. It would obviously take more work and endorsements for a less wealthy person to run for office; but, it is still possible.
DeleteI agree with your points it is stack against people who dont have much money and it is impossible for non elite people to win and electoin. this ultimately leads to the rich running everything
DeleteIn a society that had no political parties it would be very difficult to organize around issues that come up. Political parties at least provide a platform with which individuals can identify. Perhaps, multi-party systems provide for more avenues of identification than two party systems. None the less it seems that political parties are a necessary piece of democratic government models. If we do not have political parties, issues that came up would be much harder to solve rather than having two different solutions there would be way too many solutions, and people would never agree upon one. Political parties also help with the government and people getting along, if two parties are ready, and have a say so for something than many people will side with one of the parties and the best decision usually wins.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that you make about political parties providing a platform that people can identify with. Having political parties provides people the chance to rally around an idea that they believe a political party represents that idea. It gives people a group to follow and support.
DeleteI agree with both of ya'll i believe without having political parties it wouldn't give the citizens a place to show their beliefs. Their beliefs are based off of what the political parties stand for. They give the citizens ideas of and how to vote for who runs the office. Each party has a representative that pretty much represents the political parties and the citizens.
DeleteI agree with what you have said about the usefulness of political parties. I think without any parties the government would be unproductive because there would not be multiple parties with different views to help come up with an appropriate solution or compromise for an issue.
DeleteJohn Adams, in his October 2, 1789 letter to John Jackson stated, "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." Adams has not been alone in his concerns over the party system and the decisiveness is causes among amongst the leaders of our country, the states, or any of our civic municipalities. It's almost impossible to read or experience any conversation around government without the word, "bipartisan" being spoken or alluded to. That said, political parties are important to the functioning of a democracy, especially our democracy. It would be impossible, in a nation of three hundred and twenty five million people to process a political stance without party affiliation (worldometers.com.) Having two main parties, even with the flaws of extremisms within each group, seems to have worked the best. Additional parties have trouble gaining traction, cause fracturing during votes and elections, and have caused less than majority decisions to have succeeded. Two parties keeps things simple for the populace, and still allows for a wide rage of free will opinions to be expressed and accounted for, and falls into a system of checks and balances between the two parties. A two party system can be very frustrating and inefficient at times, but it has worked for America up to this point.
ReplyDeleteI do not think political parties are necessary for the functioning of a democracy but I do think they are important. Political parties allow people of common interests to group together and promote their similar opinions. Although, these parties are not absolutely necessary for the functioning government. They seem to organize the government more to prevent an increase in civil adversities and give people an group to rely on that they feel like they can relate to. The lack of political parties could arise in some forms of increased agreement but it is also likely that the lack of political parties could result in more disfunction. I believe political parties are a valuable part of democracy in the US
ReplyDeleteAre interest groups good or bad for politics? Should they be limited somehow?
ReplyDeleteI think interest groups are the best mechanism we have as of right now that upholds the basic tenets of a liberal democracy. They offer avenues in which constituents and people impacted by certain specific policy issues can communicate to their legislators, the courts, or bureaucratic agencies. Of course there's much nuance and different types of interest groups which exist. Protective groups function to defend the interests of a particular group - this includes trade unions, professional associations etc. (Hague and Harrop 151). While promotional groups act to promote a particular cause, such as single issue groups advocating for/against abortion, environmental organizations, etc. (Hague and Harrop 152). Overall these groups function seek to influence the democratic process in someway either through attending committee hearings, helping write legislation, lobby legislators to sway their vote. While there may be some general trends noted about interest groups, their specific roles and operation does change based on which liberal democracy we're considering. In Europe, broadly speaking, groups act more in conjunction with government to negotiate and formulate policy. The book terms this practice "'societal corporatism' or 'social partnership'" (Hague and Harrop 154). Distinct from the US where interest groups are inherently at odds with each other desperately vying for government's attention. In the US interest groups offset our dominant two-party system by introducing means for pluralistic politics to take place. They also protect the voice and interests of minorities which can be displaced by majoritarian government. I really appreciated the section which highlighted the faults of interest groups. I literally was just thinking about that article by Schlozman which I had to read in American Political System class. The article well documents the disproportional nature of interest groups. Business sector/finance related interest groups are the dominate share of groups. They also spend the most amount of money out of all interest groups combined! "Together corporations and
trade and other business associations account for 74 percent of all dollars spent on
lobbying. Adding other business-related organizations such as foreign corporations and
business associations and business-related research organizations brings the share up
to 77 percent" (Shlozman 4). Anyhow I think there's much to be improved on in terms of interest groups and their lobbying capacity. Money should place less of a role in facilitating the lobbying process if we want to maintain our democratic values. Political voice cannot be associated with wealth and resources. Congress members should be restricted to a certain cap amount of money that they can accept from interest groups - then they would be more intentional and have discretion with which groups they take money from. And whatever other policy ideas out there that undo the relationship of money with power should be enacted!
Here's the article if anyone wants to read it. ITS REALLY GOOD!!
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Schlozman-et-al_Interests-in-Pressure-Politics_15.pdf
I do not think political parties are necessary for a functioning democracy. When the United States was founded the founding fathers did not include political parties as an essential part of democracy and maybe there was a reason behind that. Political parties tend to separate people more than divide them. It is true someone can be more conservative or liberal in their way of life and that can translate into their political views but I believe there is a better way to represent the public without so much corruption and alienation. Getting rid of political parties would not solve the issue of corruption and might create a more extreme divide. I believe political parties are important to the way we view politics today but may be outdated in the future.
ReplyDelete