DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Amendment William & Mary Law Review Volume 44 (2002-2003) Issue 5 Article 2 April 2003 Regulating Political Parties under a "Public Rights" First Amendment Gregory P. Magarian Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Gregory P. Magarian, Regulating Political Parties under a "Public Rights" First Amendment, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1939 (2003), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol44/iss5/2 Copyright c 2003 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 44 No.5,2003 REGULATING POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER A "PUBLIC RIGHTS" FIRST AMENDMENT GREGORY P. MAGARIAN* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1942 I. THE DOMINANT THEORETICAL APPROACH TO REVIEWING REGULATIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES .................. 1946 A. The PrivateRights Theory of Expressive Freedom ..... 1947 B. The Responsible Party Government Theory of the ElectoralProcess ................................ 1959 C. Symbiosis Between the PrivateRights Theory and the Responsible Party Government Theory ........... 1965 1. Political Stability Through Preelectoral Coalition Building ............................ 1965 2. DiscouragingFactions by Limiting Voices in Government ................................ 1968 3. The Voting Cue ............................... 1970 * Associate Professor, Villanova University School of Law. B.A. 1989, Yale University; J.D., M.P.P. 1993, University of Michigan. Thanks to Michelle Anderson, Ed Baker, Mike Carroll, Steve Chanenson, Frank Cooper, Dan Farber, Heather Gerken, Rick Hasen, Sam Issacharoff, Rick Pildes, and workshop participants at Rutgers University-Camden School of Law for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1939 1940 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:1939 II. AN ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL APPROACH TO REVIEWING REGULATIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES .................. 1971 A. The PublicRights Theory of Expressive Freedom ..... 1972 B. The Dynamic Party Politics Theory of the Electoral Process ................................ 1991 1. Normative Skepticism: The Duopoly's Anticompetitive Effects ......................... 1992 2. DescriptiveSkepticism: The Duopoly's Dubious Benefits .................. 1994 3. From Skepticism About the Duopoly to an Alternative Theory of PoliticalParties' Role in the Democratic Process ............................ 1996 C. Symbiosis Between the Public Rights Theory and the Dynamic Party Politics Theory ................. 2003 1. Inclusive Electoral Process ..................... 2003 2. PreventingEntrenchment of Elected Officials ...... 2004 3. Wide-Ranging ElectoralDebate .................. 2007 III. ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ABOUT ELECTORAL REGULATIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ................................ 2010 A. The Court Sustains Major Parties'First Amendment Challenges to ElectoralRegulations ................ 2011 1. Vindicating Free Association in CandidateSelection Procedures:California Democratic Party v. Jones ... 2011 2. Vindicating Free Speech Rights of Access to the Means of Electoral Debate: The Colorado Republican Decisions .............. 2024 B. The Court Rejects Minor Parties'First Amendment Challenges to Electoral Regulations ................ 2031 1. Denying Free Association in CandidateSelection Procedures:Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party 2031 2. Denying Free Speech Rights of Access to the Means of Electoral Debate: Arkansas Area Educational Television Commission v. Forbes ................ 2038 20031 REGULATING POLITICAL PARTIES 1941 IV. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE PUBLIC RIGHTS THEORY FOR REGULATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES ............... 2043 A. State Action DistinctionBetween Major and M inor PoliticalParties ........................... 2043 B. ContributionLimits, Expenditure Limits, and PoliticalParties ............................. 2050 C. FirstAmendment Challenges to StructuralElements of the ElectoralSystem ........................... 2055 CONCLUSION . ....................................... 2060 1942 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:1939 There is, of course, no reason why two parties should retaina permanent monopoly on the right to have people vote for or againstthem. Competition in ideas and in governmentalpolicies is at the core of our electoralprocess and of the FirstAmendment freedoms.' INTRODUCTION The recently-enacted McCain-Feingold campaign finance law2 pushes to the fore the questions of whether and to what extent the First Amendment allows government to regulate the electoral activities of political parties. One of the new law's primary components is its attempt to eliminate so-called "soft money"- unlimited donations to national political parties that the Democrats and Republicans have used to circumvent legal limits on campaign contributions? One congressional opponent of the new law called it "the death knell" for political parties' role in elections." Not surprisingly, both major parties have attacked McCain-Feingold. Most Republicans in Congress opposed the legislation, and some of them are leading a constitutional challenge to the law. Democrats, while largely supportive in Congress, encouraged the Federal Election Commission to weaken the law's effects through rule- making.5 While opinions differ about whether McCain-Feingold will 1. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32 (1968). 2. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002). 3. See id. § 101, 116 Stat. 81, 82-86 (amending § 323 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 431). "Soft money" refers to funds, not subject to federal limits on contributions, that political parties use to finance the state portion of an electoral slate. Parties have developed methods of using soft money to fund federal candidates, notably through "issue advertisements"-also a subject of proscription in McCain-Feingold-which advocate positions in federal campaigns without expressly advocating a particular candidate's election. See generallyRichard Briffault, The PoliticalParties and CampaignFinance Reform, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 620, 628-31 (2000). 4. Excerpts From House Debate on the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Bill, N.Y. TimEs, Feb. 14, 2002, at A30 (quoting Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.)). Advocates of McCain-Feingold do not dispute the characterization of the law as a check on the parties' influence. See, e.g., Briffault, supra note 3, at 655-59 (advocating regulations along the lines of McCain-Feingold to control the parties' disproportionate influence on the electoral process). 5. See Richard A. Oppel, Jr., Sponsors Assert Soft Money Ban May Be Diluted, N.Y. TIMES, June 14, 2002, at Al. 2003] REGULATING POLITICAL PARTIES 1943 prevent circumvention of contribution limits, the two major parties strongly assert that the law will impede their functioning and thereby disable democracy. Whether the Supreme Court upholds the statute will depend in large measure on theories about how the First Amendment limits government regulation of political parties.6 The present Court, across the terrain of First Amendment doctrine, treats the freedom of expression and the attendant freedom of association as private, negative rights intended to shield individual autonomy against government regulation. The Court balances individuals' expressive interests against the government's regulatory interest without regard to broader societal implications of First Amendment disputes. This approach has led the Court in recent years to show great solicitude for the interests of the two major political parties. In rulings that benefit those parties almost exclusively, the Court has held that the First Amendment's protection of free association bars states from making political parties accept nonpartisans as primary voters7 and that the Free Speech Clause bars Congress from restricting parties' expenditures in political campaigns unless the spending is explicitly coordinated with the party's candidate.8 In contrast, the Court has taken a narrow view of First Amendment rights where minor political parties' distinct interests have been at issue.' According to recent decisions, the Amendment *doesnot bar states from forbidding minor parties to co-nominate major party 6. This Article discusses only the activities of political parties that relate directly to nominating and electing candidates. Political parties have other important functions-notably their roles in passing legislation, redistricting, and distributing patronage jobs-that I do not address directly. 7. See Cal. Democratic Partyv. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (discussed infra Part III.A.1). 8. See Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. (Colorado I), 533 U.S. 431 (2001); Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n (Colorado I), 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [hereinafter Colorado ] (discussed infra Part III.A.2). 9. By "major political parties," I mean the Republicans and Democrats, or any party or parties that unseat the Democrats and/or the Republicans as one of the two dominant parties in the United States. I use the term "minor political parties" as an umbrella to cover alternative parties that survive multiple election cycles, such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party; parties that emerge as vehicles for an individual's candidacy, such as the Reform Party; and independent candidacies, such as John Anderson's 1980 presidential
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Choose a Political Party
    FastFACTS How to Choose a Political Party When you sign up to vote, you can join a political party. A political party is a group of people who share the same ideas about how the government should be run and what it should do. They work together to win elections. You can also choose not to join any of the political parties and still be a voter. There is no cost to join a party. How to choose a political party: • Choose a political party that has the same general views you do. For example, some political parties think that government should No Party Preference do more for people. Others feel that government should make it If you do not want to register easier for people to do things for themselves. with a political party (you • If you do not want to join a political party, mark that box on your want to be “independent” voter registration form. This is called “no party preference.” Know of any political party), mark that if you do, you may have limited choices for party candidates in “I do not want to register Presidential primary elections. with a political party” on the registration form. In • You can change your political party registration at any time. Just fill California, you can still out a new voter registration form and check a different party box. vote for any candidate in The deadline to change your party is 15 days before the election. a primary election, except If you are not registered with a political party and for Presidential candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarians in Bush's World
    ESSAY ON LIBERTY+ LIBERTARIANS IN BUSH’S WORLD Todd Seavey* Imagine ordinary, non-ideological people hearing about an obscure politi- cal sect called libertarianism, which emphasizes self-ownership, property rights, resistance to tyranny and violence, the reduction of taxation and regulation, control over one’s own investments, and the de-emphasizing of litigation as a primary means of dispute resolution. Since this philosophy has very few adherents in the general population and is very much a minority position among intellectuals, one might expect proponents of the creed to count themselves lucky, given the likely alternatives, if the president of the country in which most of them live increasingly emphasized the themes of freedom and ownership in his major speeches; toppled brutal totalitarian regimes in two countries while hounding democracy-hating theocratic terrorists around the globe; cut taxes (despite howls even from some in the free-market camp that the cuts were too deep); called for simplification of the tax code; appointed relatively industry-friendly officials to major regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration despite frequent criti- cism by the media; proposed partially privatizing Social Security (America’s largest socialist boondoggle but one long regarded as sacrosanct by political analysts); and pushed tort reform to combat the chilling effect of lawsuits on doctors and manu- facturers. + Essays on Liberty is a continuing series of the Journal of Law & Liberty, dedicated to explorations of freedom and law from perspectives outside the legal academy. * Director of Publications for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAnd- Fears.com), which does not necessarily endorse the views expressed here.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule-Of-Law.Pdf
    RULE OF LAW Analyze how landmark Supreme Court decisions maintain the rule of law and protect minorities. About These Resources Rule of law overview Opening questions Discussion questions Case Summaries Express Unpopular Views: Snyder v. Phelps (military funeral protests) Johnson v. Texas (flag burning) Participate in the Judicial Process: Batson v. Kentucky (race and jury selection) J.E.B. v. Alabama (gender and jury selection) Exercise Religious Practices: Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (controversial religious practices) Wisconsin v. Yoder (compulsory education law and exercise of religion) Access to Education: Plyer v. Doe (immigrant children) Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) Cooper v. Aaron (implementing desegregation) How to Use These Resources In Advance 1. Teachers/lawyers and students read the case summaries and questions. 2. Participants prepare presentations of the facts and summaries for selected cases in the classroom or courtroom. Examples of presentation methods include lectures, oral arguments, or debates. In the Classroom or Courtroom Teachers/lawyers, and/or judges facilitate the following activities: 1. Presentation: rule of law overview 2. Interactive warm-up: opening discussion 3. Teams of students present: case summaries and discussion questions 4. Wrap-up: questions for understanding Program Times: 50-minute class period; 90-minute courtroom program. Timing depends on the number of cases selected. Presentations maybe made by any combination of teachers, lawyers, and/or students and student teams, followed by the discussion questions included in the wrap-up. Preparation Times: Teachers/Lawyers/Judges: 30 minutes reading Students: 60-90 minutes reading and preparing presentations, depending on the number of cases and the method of presentation selected.
    [Show full text]
  • WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06–713. Argued October 1, 2007—Decided March 18, 2008* After the Ninth Circuit invalidated Washington’s blanket primary sys- tem on the ground that it was nearly identical to the California sys- tem struck down in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567, state voters passed an initiative (I–872), providing that candi- dates must be identified on the primary ballot by their self- designated party preference; that voters may vote for any candidate; and that the two top votegetters for each office, regardless of party preference, advance to the general election. Respondent political par- ties claim that the new law, on its face, violates a party’s associa- tional rights by usurping its right to nominate its own candidates and by forcing it to associate with candidates it does not endorse. The District Court granted respondents summary judgment, enjoining I– 872’s implementation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: I–872 is facially constitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Title of Article UNITY08 TALKS to INDEPENDENTS PAGE 10 FULANI
    Title of Article FULANI SAYS: “ W H O D E C I D E D H I L L A R Y I S B E S T F O R T H E BLACK COMMUNITY?” PA G E 3 3 THE KUCINICH FACTOR: MANGIA BUILDS A BRIDGE PA G E 2 3 U N I T Y 0 8 TA L K S TO INDEPENDENTS PA G E 1 0 N E W H A M P S H I R E INDEPENDENTS SPEAK OUT PA G E 1 7 G R I F F I N A N D O B A M A : CHANGE IS IN THE AIR $6.95 PA G E 1 4 WINTER 2007/2008 THE NEO-INDEPENDENT I WINTER 2007 / 2008 V o l 4 . N 0 . 2 $6.95 TH E P OL ITI C S O F B ECOM I N G New Hampshire Goes Independent Dennis Kucinich At The Threshold Barack Obama On The Move Ron Paul Against the Odds GW Addresses Major Party Doug Bailey On Unity08 Corruption It’s Those Parties! (And I’ll Cry If I Want To) JACQUELINE SALIT Title of Article adj. 1 of, or pertaining to, the movement of independent voters for political recognition and popular power __ n. an independent voter in the post-Perot era, without traditional ideological attachments, seeking the overthrow of bipartisan political corruption __ adj. 2 of, or pertaining to, an independent political force styling itself as a postmodern progressive counterweight to neo-conservatism, or the neo-cons WINTER 2007/2008 THE NEO-INDEPENDENT III IT’S A SNORE By the time you read this note, the 2008 presiden- out that way.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Open-Primary Reform Leaves Open Questions As to Its
    Issue 1603 California’s Open Primary Primer May/June INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS California’s Open-Primary Reform Leaves Open Questions as to Its Effect on Golden State Politics INTRODUCTION By Bill Whalen California’s Open-Primary A funny thing happened to California on the way to its moment of glory as the decider of the fate of the next Republican presidential nominee. Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Reform Leaves Open Questions Governor John Kasich abruptly quit the race in early May, a month before California’s as to Its Effect on Golden State June 7 vote, leaving the California landscape wide open to Donald Trump. Politics by Bill Whalen Quicker than you can say “Lucy pulls the football away,” the Golden State found itself flat on its back, once again without a significant role in the selection process. (The Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie POLL ANALYSIS Sanders has been pretty much a given going back to March.) California’s June Primary: The last time California was a real player in primary season? Ronald Reagan needed the Laying the Foundation for What Golden State to stay alive, in 1976, during his challenge to Gerald Ford. Otherwise, we’re is to Come looking at 1968 and Robert F. Kennedy’s fabled run that ended in tragedy—and 1964 and by Carson Bruno the GOP ideological rift that pitted the conservative icon Barry Goldwater versus the decid- edly moderate Nelson Rockefeller. FEATURED COMMENTARY This isn’t to suggest that California is irrelevant in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Searchablehistory.Com 1960-1969 P. 1 SEATTLE's DOLTON RECORDS
    SEATTLE’S DOLTON RECORDS DISTRIBUTES THE NORTHWEST ROCK SOUND Dolton Records in Seattle Dolton was the brainchild of Bob Reisdorff, sales manager at Seattle’s top independent record wholesaler, in partnership who joined with the Seattle’s leading country/pop star: Bonnie Guitar Bonnie knew music and sound engineering1 Dolton Records scored half-dozen international hits for local teen bands such as the Fleetwoods, Frantics, Little Bill and the Bluenotes, and the Ventures -- 1959-1960 Reisdorff and Bonnie could not agree on the direction their label would take Dolton Records moved to Hollywood and opened up room for new labels to emerge JERDEN RECORDS IN SEATTLE RELEASES RECORDS BY FAMOUS RECORDING ARTISTS Gerald B. “Jerry” Dennon quit college to work for KOIN-TV in Portland [1956] he was soon hired by BG Record Service to push records to area shops and radio stations2 Jerden Music, Inc. started out based in Dennon’s apartment on Seattle’s Queen Anne Hill he and Bonnie Guitar began scouting for talent Bonnie performed a solo gig at Vancouver, Washington’s Frontier Room -- early 1960 she discovered a teen vocal trio, Darwin and the Cupids with a Fleetwood-style sound Seattle’s mighty KJR to Vancouver B.C.’s C-FUN were supported the newly-discovered group Jerden Music was off to a fine start -- and then Darwin and the Cupids quickly faded from view CENSUS DATA SHOWS THE FULL EFFECTS OF THE POST-WAR “BABY BOOM” This newest census report was the first to mail a questionnaire to all United States households 3 to be filled out in preparation for
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1 Political Parties and Accountability Establishment, Constitution, Transparency § 1
    Federal Act on the Financing of Political Parties (Political Parties Act 2012 [Parteiengesetz 2012]) Federal Law Gazette I No. 56/2012 Section 1 Political parties and accountability Establishment, constitution, transparency § 1. (Constitutional provision) (1) The existence and diversity of political parties are key elements of the Republic of Austria's democratic order (Art. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Law, Federal Law Gazette No. 1/1930). (2) A political party is a permanently organised association which, through common activities, aims at comprehensively influencing the national decision-making process, in particular by participating in elections for general representative bodies and the European Parliament, and whose constitution has been deposited with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. (3) Political parties may be freely established, unless the Federal Constitutional Law provides otherwise. Their activities shall not be subject to any restrictions by particular legal provisions. (4) The political parties shall resolve on their constitutions, which they shall deposit with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The political party shall obtain legal personality upon deposit of the constitution. The constitutions shall be published by the political parties on the Internet in an appropriate manner. The constitutions shall, in particular, contain details of 1. the executive bodies or officers of the party and their power of representation, with a manager or managing body, a members’ meeting and a supervisor or supervisory body having to be provided for in any event, 2. the rights and obligations of the members, 3. the structure of the party, 4. provisions on the voluntary dissolution of the political party. (5) Political parties can notify the Federal Ministry of the Interior of their voluntary dissolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Composition of State Legislatures by Political Party Affiliation: 2009 and 2010 [Data As of March and Reflect February Election Results in Year Shown, Except As Noted
    Table 410. Political Party Control of State Legislatures by Party: 1985 to 2010 [As of beginning of year. Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature] Legislatures under— Legislatures under— Legislatures under— Year Demo- Split Repub- Year Demo- Split Repub- Year Demo- Split Repub- cratic control lican cratic control lican cratic control lican control or tie control control or tie control control or tie control 1985. 27 11 11 1996. 16 15 18 2004. 17 11 21 1989 1 . 28 13 8 1997. 20 11 18 2005. 19 10 20 1990. 29 11 9 1999. 20 12 17 2006. 19 10 20 1992. 29 14 6 2000. 16 15 18 2007. 22 12 15 1993. 25 16 8 2001. 16 15 18 2008. 23 14 12 1994. 24 17 8 2002. 17 15 17 2009. 27 8 14 1995. 18 12 19 2003. 16 12 21 2010. 27 8 14 1 A party change during the year by a Democratic representative broke the tie in the Indiana House of Representatives, giving the Republicans control of both chambers. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO, State Legislatures, periodic. Table 411. Composition of State Legislatures by Political Party Affiliation: 2009 and 2010 [Data as of March and reflect February election results in year shown, except as noted. Figures reflect immediate results of elections, including holdover members in state houses which do not have all of their members running for reelection. Dem. = Democrat, Rep. = Republican, Vac. = Vacancies. In general, Lower House refers to body consisting of state representatives and Upper House, of state senators] Lower House Lower House Upper House Upper House State 2009 2010 2009 2010 Dem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination
    The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination Thomas R. Marshall, University of Texas at Arlington The 1996 presidential nominations process will not begin with the first state primaries and caucuses. By January 1996 the candidates had already spent millions of dollars and thousands of days campaigning during the "in­ visible primary." The 1996 nominations race features several new prac­ tices—such as the front-loading of delegate-selection events, and the re- emergence of Washington insiders as the early GOP leaders. For the first time since 1964 the Democrat Party did not face a spirited nominations race. This article reviews the prenomination season for the 1996 presidential race with evidence available by early January 1996. Public Opinion Public opinion remained relatively stable during the 1995 "invisible primary," just as it typically has in recent presidential contests.1 Heavy spending in key primary and caucus states, debates among the candidates, and the entry and exit of candidates all failed to move public opinion polls during 1995. In the absence of saturation media coverage and media labeling of "winners" and "losers" in the early caucuses and primaries, few dramatic poll shifts appeared. The Republicans Throughout 1995, the Gallup Poll reported only slight changes in the first-choice preferences of self-identified Republicans and independents leaning Republicans. Between April 1995 and January 1996, front-runner Bob Dole’s support varied only from a low of 45 percent to a high of 51 percent. Support for Senator Phil Gramm varied only from a low of seven percent to a high of 13 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Trump – and How Far Can He Go?
    The Forum 2015; 13(4): 541–558 William G. Mayer* Why Trump – and How Far Can He Go? DOI 10.1515/for-2015-0038 Introduction Like most pundits – and most political scientists – I did not see this one coming. I was not terribly surprised when, on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced that he was running for president. As more and more presidential debates are held before the first primary, and as more and more of these debates are nation- ally televised, we have gradually begun to produce a set of candidates who enter the presidential race not because they have a realistic chance of winning their party’s nomination, but because it is a good career move. They get a boatload of free publicity, and if they were not running for president, it is not clear what else they’d be doing. So it was no great surprise that Donald Trump, who absolutely craves public- ity, decided to get into the race. And since early presidential polls do not measure much except name recognition, I was not surprised that the first national poll conducted after his announcement found that he had the support of 11 percent of the country’s Republican identifiers. The shock is how much support he has gained since then, and how long he has held on to it. According to the realclear- politics website, which collects results from all the major polls and then com- putes a running average, it was July 20 when Trump first broke into the lead in the national polls of Republican identifiers, at which point he was supported by, on average, 17 percent of party adherents.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Roles of Political Parties
    One Big Party? Name: It’s a Party… …but not the kind with ice cream and cake (usually). Political parties are groups of people who share similar beliefs about how the government should be run and how the issues facing our country should be solved. By organizing into political parties, people have more power to make their voices heard than they would have if they acted alone. Political parties are powerful organizations that fight to get the government to act in ways the political party believes is best. Political parties are organized at every level of government, from the national level right down to your own neighborhood. Five Roles of Political Parties Nominate Candidates Create Balance Political parties are responsible for The most powerful political selecting candidates who will run party is the one that has the for political office. The parties most members elected to office. choose candidates who believe in Being in the majority means the party's platform. These the party can focus the candidates represent the party’s government’s attention on issues that are members and help to spread the party’s message important to the party’s platform. The party in during elections. the minority works hard to oppose the majority party and keep it in check. Usually the majority Influence Policy party is able to get many laws passed. Depending on the minority party’s strength, the Members of the Senate and the House majority may need to compromise with the of Representatives are also members minority before a law will pass. In this way the of political parties.
    [Show full text]