Write a reflective response (4-5 sentences each) to each of the three prompts below.
1. Morris Fiorina spends much of his essay discussing whether or not parties are “responsible.” What does he mean by “responsible parties?” What is responsible party theory? And, in your own definition, what does it mean for a party to be responsible?
2. Why does Fiorina think that the parties today are unable to govern effectively (or, responsibly) and in your opinion, why aren’t parties today able to govern effectively? How might parties change to begin to govern more effectively?
3. Why don’t parties die? As Masket points out, we haven’t a new major party in 160 years, since the Civil War. He offers a number of reasons why parties don’t die. What are some of those, and do you agree with him? Can you come up with some other plausible reasons as to why the Republicans and Democrats have lasted for so long?
To add your reply, click "add a new discussion topic," type your response to each of the questions, and then make sure to click "post to forum." Then, check out some of your fellow classmate's responses and make sure to reply (as discussed in the syllabus) to at least two of your classmates' responses before 7/2 at 11:59pm.
Fiorina writes that “Responsible” parties are those who entrust the leadership of the country to one cohesive party. In other words, responsible parties are those who do not split up the control of the U.S. government. Fiorina states that parties today are more “responsible” than back in the 1970’s. Responsible party theory is when parties are expected to be held accountable for their beliefs and actions that their electors voted them in for. I think that a party truly being responsible means that they stick to the values and promises made that electors voted them in for. I think they become irresponsible when different members of the party start going back on what they said they would do and their unity as a party is damaged.
Fiorina states that parties are not effectively able to govern, as they are not as unified in today’s government and the stakes have become higher. I believe that the reason parties are not able to govern effectively is because of the polarization they have undergone, particularly in recent years. Each party seems to have gone either super far-right or super far left on issues, and it seems wrong as the majority of Americans probably feel as they are more in the center on issues. I think additionally there is more of an emphasis for today’s politicians on campaigning as opposed to governing. If we want to see a drastic change in the efficiency of our government, we need to begin holding more politicians accountable and start paying more attention to how they are voting once they get into power.
Masket points out a very important concept to the longevity of parties that I agreed on. The fact that our system is “winner-take-all” means that the two-party system will always be favored. In other democracies, it can make more sense to support smaller parties as they still have ways to be proportionally represented by the votes of the popular vote. However, our system lacks this and thus we have had a two-party system for decades. Masket mentions that third-party votes can feel “wasted” in our system and a more proportional system where winning 5% of a popular vote still gets you some seats in the legislature would make it more likely for people to vote for smaller parties. I think because of this system and the fear that any vote for a third party is wasted, the Republicans and Democrats have lasted so long.