Law Students

The Dilemma of Party Identifiers

By Scott Felsenthal et al.

One of the single greatest pastimes in the American culture is the sport of professional football.  Throughout the fall and winter months Americans gather to watch, and/or attend, football games.  Many sports fans choose a team because of a particular player or coach, perhaps because it is the hometown team, their father’s favorite team, or any other of numerous reasons.  They remain loyal and sympathetic to that team throughout their lifetime.  As we draw near to this year’s NFL Super Bowl, and while the presidential race is in the drawing headline news everyday, I cannot help but to think of the similarities of the two.  Political parties have become much like NFL teams.  People often cast their votes for a particular political party like football fans that lay down bets on a particular team.  The majority of folks identify with one of the two major parties in America, but do these same people’s beliefs about important issues coincide with their party’s platform?  That is, do their beliefs about the way in which government should be run, and their economic and social interests correspond to their party identification?

Since most people identify with a particular party at an early age, to which they remain loyal throughout their lifetime, the most important question (I see) is whether or not that party represents their beliefs.  Since party identification is the most important factor in a person’s vote choice, it is imperative that this party truly represent the person’s beliefs.  In a democracy, according to Webster’s definition, the people have control over the government through their ability to express their will in an election.  This only happens, however, if people’s votes represent their beliefs.

If the answer to the same question is "no," that the party identification of people is not representative of their beliefs, then isn't democracy in peril?  This carries potential hazards because partisanship, established at an early age, may not really represent a person’s beliefs later in life (if they ever did at all).  A person may vote for a candidate they know nothing about simply because the candidate is running under that particular party’s banner.  These blind, naive actions nullify the representation of voters’ true interests and well-being.  This is a perversion of the intentions of a democratic government the founding fathers had in mind and competitive party politics which they had hoped to avoid, but knew was inevitable.

I conducted a study and published a thesis in college which looked at (1) political parties, their origins and initial purposes, the history and evolution of political parties and partisanship, (2) examined some of the findings of political psychology, focusing on the variables which affect party identification, and (3) compared partisan identification and individuals’ issue preference to the platform and tendencies of the Republican and Democratic parties based on data from the 1996 American National Election Survey.  Now much of the data that that study was based on has become outdated, but the results, I would imagine, are not likely to be much different.  The results of that study showed that there was very little to no correlation between identifiers issue preferences and the platform and tendencies of the party they self-identify with.  The ramifications of those findings pose a serious threat to our competitive two-party system.  Additionally, they raise questions as to why so many people claim to be strong or “hardcore” Republicans or Democrats.  When partisan identifiers go into the polls they often vote a straight Republican ticket or straight Democratic ticket.  But ultimately, why are these people so set on voting for a party which platform and tendencies show next to no correlation with their beliefs and interests?  Do people claim to be a “hardcore” Republican or Democrat because of one issue that their party preference takes a stand for?  If so, what is it, because the issues in that study showed no good relationship with the actuality of parties and their identifiers?

This area of political behavior is definitely in need of further study.  Such further studies might wish to explore the cognitive utility of partisans; I mean do people really know what the party they self-identify stands for?  Do they actually understand the issues at hand, let alone the full array of party platforms?

It has become like a game.  A person may vote for a candidate they know nothing about simply because the candidate is running under that particular party’s banner.  People support political parties as if they were some type of athletic team; casting their ballot like they lay down bets for a team…a team that does not adequately represent their issues preferences.  This is the dilemma of party identifiers.

Thoughts or comments?

Full post as published by The Legal Scoop on January 25, 2008 (boomark / email).