Summer '22 - Intro to American Government & Politics

When Morris Fiorina discusses “responsible parties,” I think he is discussing accountability. The responsible party theory can be defined as an idea in which the electors keep the political parties responsible for their beliefs. In doing this, the people’s votes should be a reflection of the views of the people, not the political party. To me, I believe a political party is responsible when they are open to change and have beliefs that are like those of the people that support them. They also influence government decisions through the beliefs of the supporting people. This makes the party responsible in making decisions and representing the people.

Fiorina believes that the reason parties today are unable to govern affectively is because there is a higher margin for error and the government is not unified. Due to this division, when a party loses, they lose everything and when a party wins, they have control over everything. Today there are no compromises. I agree with him, I think reason that political parties are unable to govern effectively is because they are so polarized on a broad range of issues. This polarization makes it hard to attain any goal. Not to mention that due to this most politicians are so focused of reelection they don’t implement any source of change during their term. To begin governing more effectively, I think that the parties need to learn how to take compromises and start focusing on implementing change not reelection.

Masket points out that the reason parties don’t die is because of how durable our system is. I agree with him but I also think parties don’t die because changing is a lot easier to do rather than starting from scratch. With the political system being the way it is, it is hard to have a third party exist. I think another reason that both Democrats and Republicans have lasted so long is through passing down political beliefs in one’s family. Your parents and family can either influence you to align with or against s certain party.

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?

According to Fiorina, a responsible party is one that makes decisions based on good morals rather than the overarching greater good. He says that you should be able to trust the leadership of the country and have a singular, connected party. That is the job of a responsible party. To me, a responsible party is one that doesn’t allow for large divisions within its people. A responsible party should consider all the opinions of its people and decide from both a moral and practical standpoint what is best. The leader should be both easily trusted and trusting, and they should want what is best for the country as a whole.

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?

Fiorina believes that parties today are unable to govern effectively because of the massive amounts of division and polarization. Between party lines, there is so much conflict and difference of opinion that it is nearly impossible to get anything done. There is rarely an issue that any political parties can agree upon in terms of issue resolution. If somehow the parties were able to get over their own egos and personal feelings of pride, they would be able to find a middle ground and we could have much less division and overall be much more responsible

3. Why don’t parties die? As Masket points out, we haven’t had 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?

Masket says that parties don’t die because of loyalty ties to parties.  He also says that because the two-party system is incredibly long-lasting, it will never die. I fully agree with him on both of these. It seems as though through generations of families, they feel as though they have to vote a certain way because the family is so loyal to a certain party. That in tandem with the longevity of the party system nearly ensures that the parties never fail. It would be incredibly difficult to build a new party from the bottom and try to have it play in the same league as the republicans and the democrats. They both have hundreds of years worth of reputations to uphold, and a new party could never stand up to something like that. 

2. Fiorini thinks that parties today are unable to govern effectively or responsibly because they are so polarized. As Fiorini points out, voters in America today are generally moderate. I agree with Fiorini that party polarization is a big issue. The parties do not represent the majority of Americans, and as Fiorini states, they "focus on their ability to mobilize the already committed". I think that flexibility could help the parties to govern more effectively. 

3. Masket states that parties don't die because of the durability of our current party system. While I do agree with this, I think that the main reason that the Republicans and Democrats have lasted so long is because it is easier to identify with one of the two rather than to start a new party that will not stand a chance against strong, long lasting parties. 

1.Morris Fiorina defines responsible parties as being able to entrust a complete leadership of the country and foster a cohesive party. Fiorina finds that parties today are more responsible than they have been in the past, like in the 1970s. However, parties are now again declining in trust and responsibility, due to increasing split votes. Responsible parties also hold all credit or blame for actions that occur while in power. I believe a responsible party is a party that can reach beyond partisanship and compromise with all citizens, leading to a trustworthy and representative leadership.

2.Fiorina thinks that the parties today are unable to govern effectively because of the higher margin for error in today’s society and lack of a unified government. Parties are increasingly divided, and without compromises, losing means losing everything and winning can mean total control. Elected officials also often focus on reelection over current governing, losing focus on creating real change. I believe parties are ineffective today due to this lack of compromise and increasing hostility between party members. Even when two politicians may have similar views, if they are on opposite sides of the aisle they try to isolate themselves from the other. If parties lost some of the psychological attachment to their label and worked together regardless of party identification for a common goal, then our party system could govern more effectively.

3.Masket believes parties do not die because of durability created by our system’s design. The party-in-government system provides coordination, durable coalitions, organizes political intuitions, and induces stability in institutions by having majority/minority parties. He also states that the psychological attachment voters have with their designated party stays with them for a long time and can be passed down. This leads to a near impossible environment for a third party to get elected, so it is hard to legitimatize anything other than Democrats and Republicans. I believe our party system has remained for so long because anyone who has the power to change it simply will not and that voters are loyal to their party more than their ideals.

2. Political parties are not able to govern effectively because they are so polarized on basically all of the issues. It is hard to come to a decision when all of the viewpoints are opposites. Another issue with todays political parties is the same issue that Fiorina eludes to; the people are not holding political parties accountable to their mistakes. A political party will make a mistake and there will be public outcry, but come the next election that party is still voted for. I think the main reason the parties are not able to govern effectively is because they have such opposite views because one party advocates for more government assistance and one party advocates for less. The parties today are less likely to meet in the middle and negotiate, and instead just rely on outnumbering the representation of the opposing party. I think if parties will work to try to come to the middle ground it will work a lot better, but I'm sure that's much easier said than done.

3. I think a main reason that parties don't die is that it is a lot easier to change an existing party rather than try to start a whole new party. Like previously discussed, our political system does not really allow for a third party so it would be close to impossible to start a new political party that would beat out an existing party. A lot of the issues that the political parties deal with have an answer that goes in one of two opposite ways so people only have two options to make. There are people that find themselves in the middle of two parties, but they will often vote one way or another rather than trying to vote how they actually feel and vote for someone not in one of the two existing parties.

2. Fiorina does not believe today's parties are able to govern effectively due to the split in ideas between citizens and their parties. I believe that this has become an increasing issue, much like how the article "Why Political Parties Never Die", is not only a split in America between Democrats and Republicans but there have even been divides within those parties. For example, if someone is not far left or far right, they have typically deemed outcasts or unloyal to their party or a traitor. The divide between politics in America makes it difficult for anyone to govern effectively, for a large portion of citizens will not support their choices or decisions. I feel like citizens of America should learn how their ideas or their party can affect others rather than just seeing how it will affect them the least. Most of the time, when people vote for someone they do it depending on their own personal needs, but do not look out for the others in society in how a certain government official can be life-changing for them.  

3. In the article, Masket explains how loyal and durable our political system is, making it impossible for them to die. He explains how people's loyalty to their party does not change, even if they are "winning" by having more members of their party in office or if they are "losing" by having fewer of their people in the office. I agree with this idea, for we have become a two-party system that makes others believe that voting for a third party is "a waste of a vote". We have diminished the trust in our system for people who share our ideas are able to win in this divided nation. I believe that people stick with the political party that they are raised with until they become more open-minded to the ideas of the other side. People are so firmly planted in their political party that doesn't even care for what any of the nominees have to say or stand for. We can see this during elections when you can choose on your ballot to vote for all Republican or all Democratic nominees in one bubble rather than voting for each person based on their values or platforms. 

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?

-Morris Fiorina discusses how today's parties are much more like the paradigm of the responsible party than were the parties in the 1970s. In Principles, Fiorina explores how politics have evolved over time, becoming less responsible as Americans increasingly vote to split power of the government. Fiorina argues that a responsible party is one that entrusts leadership of the country to one cohesive partyTo be a party responsible means to have someone or a group of individuals represent you and make choices for you. This individual has the power to make judgments and conduct actions that are based on the group's or business's welfare. Typically, this is an organization or individual you can put your faith in.

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?

- Fiorina believes that because the political stakes have been heightened, parties today are unable to govern effectively or responsibly. More friction and higher stakes for winning and losing result from this. Additionally, the parties of today have had less success prioritizing governing over campaigning.They will continue to market it whether they keep their promises or not. Politicians, in my opinion, are ineffective because they don't always tell the truth about what they're saying. Government authorities believe they are too powerful and are not attentive to the demands of the people. Instead of just doing what sounds right, they need to start paying attention and truly announce what they are going to do.

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?

- Parties persist, in my opinion, in large part because it is far simpler to alter an existing party than to attempt to found a brand-new one. It would be quite difficult to launch a new political party that would defeat an established party since, as was previously noted, our political structure does not truly allow for a third party. Many of the topics that the political parties address can only have one of two opposing solutions, giving voters just two choices. People's affection and allegiance for their own sides has allowed Republicans and Democrats to endure for so long. They invest so much of their ideas, opinions, and convictions in it that it continues. That also contributes to their ability to continue funding the parties and campaigns.

1. In Fiorina’s essay he mentions that his hope is that the next political parties are better at dealing with social issues than the current ones. Fiorina’s meaning of “responsible parties” are parties that make decisions based on what is morally right instead of what the best for the success of the individual party. The responsible party theory holds parties accountable for their actions. Whether that means to make sure they follow through with promises made when campaigning, or speaking out for opposition within their own party. To me, a responsible party puts values over their party. This means that whether or not an issue aligns with their party’s history, citizens will prioritize their values.

2. Fiorina believes that with majority status being highly valued, while minority status are “intolerable”, both parties are unable to take a break between elections. Fiorina states that campaigning can sometimes get in the way of governing effectively. In my opinion, parties are unable to govern effectively because politicians are becoming selfish and having their own interests in mind rather than finding a solution that would appease most. Part of me wants to say that having political parties is all trouble. However, having two dominant parties is essential. When election time rolls in, we associate a name with a political party, rather than values.

3. Masket states that plurality and “winner take all” votes for Congress makes more a successful two-party system. Parties have been able to adapt to campaign finance reforms that took a great amount of funding. They have survived after being banned from state legislatures, which is pretty impressive. Citizens in the U.S. associate not voting for either party, voting third party, is a wasted vote. I also think that the two -party system have lasted so long is because when more opinions are involved in debating, it can quickly become overwhelming.

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.

1. Morris Fiorina talks about how the parties today are much closer to the responsible party model than the parties in the 1970s. Fiorina believes that a responsible party is one that entrust control of government to one unified party, in Principles he discusses how politics have changed overtime becoming less responsible while Americans increasingly vote to split control of the government. Responsible party theory is when all citizens are equal and should have an equal influence over the government and their decisions. To me what makes a party responsible is when all members of the party are satisfied with their decisions, and they carry out clear policies.  

2. Fiorina thinks that parties today are unable to govern effectively because they are not in a unified democratic government, and since 1976 it has collapsed. Fiorina believes that today's responsible parties are operating in a manner that was not anticipated by many who wished for a more responsible party. Fiorina discussed how the public policies that were proposed under the 2000-05 responsible party government were some of the most difficult problems and challenges in politics. If parties want to change and begin to govern better, they should begin by making their party system more effective at problem solving and focusing on issues that are more relevant to becoming a more responsible party, whether that be a unified Democratic government or a unified Republican government.   

3. Parties don’t die according to Seth Masket, this is because of reasons for durability from a mix of election laws, a form of government that favors a two-party system, the way voters think through how they will vote, and the structural obstacles faced by third parties. Masket discusses how the party's system of plurality or winner takes all elections for congress and state legislatures make for our stable two-party system. Since we have this system created in the United States it has a psychological impact on the voters where they recognize casting a ballot for anything other than the Republican or Democratic party will become a “wasted vote.” I agree with Masket on this and believe it is much harder for a third party to achieve any viability when it comes around to election time. Another plausible reason I could think of as to why our two political parties have lasted so long is that they may rig the system in order to favor themselves as a single party, which in return makes it almost impossible for a third-party to get any votes.  

2. Fiorina thinks parties today are not able to govern effectively or responsibly because the political stakes of today have been raised. With this, comes more conflict and both the stakes for winning and losing have increased.  Furthermore, the parties today have been less successful at putting governing over electioneering. I think the reason parties are not able to govern effectively is because of the lack of respect for the opposite parties from both sides. Over the years political beliefs have become reasons to demoralize and shame anyone who does not have similar views. Parties might change to begin governing more effectively by accepting losses as just one loss and strategizing how to do better next time rather than seeing a loss as a total defeat.

3. There are a few reasons parties don't die according to Masket. First, our election rules that are in place for Congress and State legislators are set up as "winner-takes-all" elections allowing for stability between the two parties. Also, our elections support a two-party-system because we vote for individual people rather than parties. Essentially, Whoever gets the most votes wins so not many different opinions and parties can be represented. Furthermore, this concept tends to dissuade people from voting outside of the two parties because they feel it would be pointless.(Durverger's Law). Voting for a third-party candidate can also skew the election results which people do not like if there is one candidate significantly better then the other. I agree with all of the reasons he came up with to explain the persistence of our two-party-system. Another reason I would offer is that media mostly portrays only the two parties. By now, most people get their political information from the media whether it's more right leaning or left leaning. It is hard to have a new successful party without the proper media attention to inform the public. 

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? The meaning of “responsible parties” or the responsible party theory is that the individual or entity who manages or directs or controls the entity has access to the funds provided by such entity. What it means for a party to be responsible is someone or a group of people that are responsible to represent and make decisions. This person has the authority to take actions and decisions based on the well-being of the group or company. This is usually a very trusted person or group. 

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? Fiorina thinks that parties today are unable to govern effectively because they are too stuck in their own beliefs and not optimistic. Also, the parties are not maximizing their votes and going based on the majority. The last one she thought was that any politician is just going to tell the public what they want to hear. Even if they follow through with the promises or not, they are still going to advertise it. In my opinion, Politicians are not truthful with everything they say and that is why they’re not effective. Government power thinks they are too strong and not listening to the public’s needs. They need to start listening and actually advertise what they are going to do instead of what sounds right.