Party branding

 

                Party strategies must promote their brand in a marketplace where the customer (i.e. the voter) effectively has a choice of two packages. To achieve this, it is necessary to paint your opponents as unfit to govern in some manner whilst neutralizing the negatives associated with your party’s brand. Since the 1990s, there are two examples one might consider. The first is the emergence of the third way associated with new Democrats (Giddens, 1998). The other is the term compassionate conservatism as used by the Republicans during the noughties. It is interesting to note that both strategies paid electoral dividends for the party in question; which of course was the whole point of the exercise.

 

                The third way was taken up by the new Democrats as a means of rebranding the party after the wilderness years of the 1980s. The third way marked an attempt to modify the central tenants of center-left thinking within the broader realities of globalization. The third way was a global movement amongst center-left parties in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. Central to the third way strategy amongst the Democrats was the role played by Dick Morris. He was the architect of triangulation in which the party adopted a limited number of popular right-wing policies in order to neutralize certain negatives. For instance, Bill Clinton championed the ‘three strikes and you are out’ policy in order to tackle concerns that the party was soft on crime. Equally, the new Democrats supported supply-side economics in order to counter the claim that the party was anti-business.

 

                At the time, triangulation seemed little more than a strategic measure to get the party back in power. However, during the Clinton presidency (Branch, 2009) figures on the left of the party claimed that the new Democrats had moved too far towards the center. This is a common narrative amongst any party’s rank-and-file when the leadership seeks electoral advantage by shifting the party towards the vital center. Left-wing figures within the party (notably Howard Dean in 2004 and Bernie Sanders at the present time) have sought to move the party back towards its natural home. Although Obama could not be classed as a new Democrat, similar criticisms have been made against his administration.

 

                Compassionate conservatism was in part inspired by the electoral strategy of triangulation. It sought to rebrand the GOP and thereby neutralize the negatives associated with the party. This is most obvious in the context of the term “compassionate.” Conservatives were seen as apologists for a callous marketplace in which individuals were left to fend for themselves. Whilst something of a caricature, the Republican Party had become tarnished by an image built up during the Reagan, Bush and Gingrich years. Compassionate conservatism was championed by George W. Bush in order to maintain the momentum behind the conservative revolution first launched by Ronald Reagan.

 

Compassionate conservatism sought to reassure the conservative base whilst reaching out towards Latinos and other minority groups not traditionally associated with the GOP. Values voters formed the bedrock of the Bush administration, and the strategy certainly paid electoral dividends in a manner comparable with the third way approach of the new Democrats. However, compassionate conservatism also ran into the exact same problems faced by the third way approach. Those on the right of the party become increasingly critical of compassionate conservatism, principally in terms of government spending. Under a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, the role of the state increased significantly. Funding two major wars, expanding Medicaid and providing federal funds for the No Child Left Behind policy all greatly increased the level of government spending. Unsurprisingly, this big government approach provoked criticism from fiscal conservatives within the GOP.

 

                Marketing labels are transient in character, and both the third way and compassionate conservatism are now somewhat dated.  Frankly, that is the nature of marketing labels.Whilst they serve a purpose in terms of helping a candidate gain elected office, they do not have the same longevity as a major ideological shift in a political party. It is therefore misleading to compare say the New Deal with compassionate conservatism. The former ushered in a genuine re-alignment within American politics, whereas the latter was essentially a strategy adopted by George W. Bush to secure elected office.

 

                At the time of writing, it is the Democrats who have the stronger brand. They are broadly united behind the Obama administration, a situation that could rarely be said of the party in the recent past. The Republicans however seem unsure as to which year to take the country back to. Social conservatives favor the Eisenhower era of traditional families and white-picket fences, whereas fiscal conservatives would love to take the country back to the 1980s. The party has also been tainted by an association with obstructionist politics under the Obama administration, notably House Republicans. Indeed, during the budget stand-off of October 2013 it was the Republicans who came off worse.

Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism

 

                The term ‘neo’ is widely used within political discourse to signify a new trend. As such, neo-liberalism (Nozick, 1974) marks a modified version of liberal thought whereas neo-conservatism (Fukuyama, 2006; Huntingdon, 2002) reflects a modern take on conservative values. The distinction between the two is an important one to make. Although a slight over-simplification, the dividing line gravitates towards the proper role of the state. Both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are more likely to be found within the GOP than the Democrats. Third parties might also be considered (such as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party), alongside pressure groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and Club for Growth.

 

                Neo-liberalism seeks to update the core elements of classical liberal thought. By the 50s and 60s, classical liberalism had been eclipsed by the hegemony of social liberalism within the states. Neo-liberalism thereby sought to recognize the changing parameters of ideological debate whilst seeking to modify the central elements of classical liberalism. By the 1980s, neo-liberalism had gained prominence within the Reagan administration (Mervin, 1990). Both Reagan and Bush senior sought to reduce the level of state interference within the economy. After an era of Republican hegemony in the White House, new Democrats broadly continued the neo-liberal economic package of de-regulation and privatization. In the contemporary era, neo-liberalism can be located amongst libertarian figures within the GOP. Those figures aligned to the Tea Party movement seek to keep the neo-liberal spirit alive at a time of rising government debt.

 

                Neo-conservatives focus less on economic policy and more on foreign policy. Whereas a neo-liberal seeks to reduce the role of the state within the economy, neo-conservatives seek to mobilize the state in order to make the world safe for democracy. Neo-conservatives believe that America must use its considerable military arsenal in order to combat the threat of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The influence of neo-conservatism reached a peak during the noughties under a Republican administration. So whereas a neo-liberal could be depicted as a fiscal hawk, a neo-conservative favors a hawkish stance on foreign affairs.

 

                Both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism have to some extent been tainted by policy failures. In the case of neo-liberalism, the credit crunch is associated in the popular mindset with de-regulation of the financial services industry (Soros, 2008; Tett, 2010). Although America is fundamentally a capitalist country, it may take some time before voters are once again prepared to support an unregulated marketplace in the context of financial institutions. Similarly, neo-conservatism has become tainted by association with the costly quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan (Woodward, 2003 and 2008). Moreover, the Obama administration has achieved some degree of success in terms of portraying their Republican opponents as apologists for the discredited policies of the past.

 

                For neo-conservatives, the size of the government is clearly of some importance. However, of greater significance to them is the moral character of the American people. Neo-cons are opposed to government schemes that undermine personal responsibility and civic action, but they do actively support programs that might reinforce such values. Neo-cons also recognize that everyone at times may need a helping hand, although they are certainly opposed to an ever-expanding government that shields people from accepting responsibility for their actions. Unlike elements of the religious right, they seek to avoid an explicit reference to religion in terms of their ideological worldview. Unlike certain strands of conservatism, neo-cons also place a greater emphasis upon empirical research.

Ideological trends within the main parties

                Both main parties have undergone something of a transformation in terms of ideology. Beginning with the Democrats, the party appealed to a number of disparate groups under the New Deal. African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, white liberals and white southern conservatives all gained in some way from the New Deal. The collapse of the New Deal hurt the party badly, to the extent that they won just one presidential election from 1968 to 1992. During the 1980s, the party engaged in a prolonged period of soul-searching that led to a change of emphasis under new Democrats such as Gore and Clinton. They offered a clear prescription to the problems afflicting the party, and identified a practical path towards power. Whilst this approach could never win over all sections of the party, it certainly provided electoral success. It must however be noted that Clinton was helped considerably by the spoiler effect attributed to Ross Perot.

                Perhaps Clinton’s lasting achievement was that he managed to hold together what Jesse Jackson once called the rainbow coalition and secure a second-term; the first Democrat to do so since FDR. Amongst the electorate, Clinton showed that the Democrats could govern effectively and rise above internal divisions. However, splits within the party would resurface during the 2004 campaign; when Howard Dean caught the spirit of the time with his incendiary claim to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” Dean captured the sense of disappointment shared by those on the left of the party had felt under the Clinton/Gore years.

By 2008, the various ideological elements of the party were once again on full show. Obama however has managed to skillfully avoid the pitfalls presented by ideological conflict within the party by pleasing both new Democrats and liberal Democrats. Like Clinton, Obama intuitively understands that a political party will usually hold together and present a united front when it either has power or has the prospect of gaining power. In opposition, ideological tensions can become more visceral as the various groups seek to direct the party in their preferred direction. On this point, the party is barely recognizable from the one cast into the electoral wilderness during the late-1960s.

                The ideological trend within the Republican Party is easier to identify, as the party has clearly shifted to the right since the 1970s. Under the Nixon presidency, social conservatives became disenchanted by the spread of a permissive society, the failure of Nixon’s war on drugs and by a number of liberal judgments reached by the Supreme Court. For their part, fiscal conservatives were disappointed at the Keynesianism adopted by the Nixon administration. As such, conservatives within the party sought to reassert their influence, and by the start of the 1980s; they had found their heroic cowboy. Ronald Reagan's administration was unmistakably conservative on a wide variety of issues, although as with any administration some compromise was inevitable.

                By the early-1990s, there was growing unrest amongst social conservatives at the patrician policies of Bush senior and a failure to tackle a variety of social issues such as teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, gang violence and so on. Social conservatives sought to place religion at the center of the GOP’s strategy, and over time they succeeded in moving the party towards the right. Although more of a pragmatist than sometimes portrayed by his opponents, George W. Bush was plainly a social conservative and one who thought religion offered a righteous path towards strengthening American families and our sense of individual responsibility. However, he disappointed fiscal conservatives due to an increase in government spending. 

                In the post-Bush era, the Tea Party has sought to move the GOP still further to the right on economic matters. As a measure of how much the party has changed, it is worth noting that Richard Nixon would no longer be a mainstream figure within the modern Republican Party; such has been the shift in the party towards the right. Policies that were very much at the margins of the GOP during the Nixon era (such as privatization of social security, staunch opposition to abortion, de-regulation and opposition to federal funding for stem-cell research) are now very much part of the Republican mainstream.

Ideological labels

                In the absence of a significant socialist force within American politics, the ideological contest is centered upon conservatism and liberalism. However, the terms are somewhat misleading. Like many ideological labels, they are all-encompassing and therefore fail to cast sufficient light upon our understanding. For example, the term ‘liberal’ fails to inform us if we are talking about social liberalism (Keynes, 1973) or classical liberalism (Hayek, 1944; Smith, 1776; T. Friedman, 2005 and 2008). In the states, the L-word tends to be shorthand for a social liberal perspective. This however only gives us part of the picture.

                First and foremost, a liberal (henceforth associated with the term social liberal) adopts a progressive mindset. Liberals take a positive view of human nature and believe that the purpose of politics is to create a more tolerant society based upon fairness and equal opportunities. Note the distinction here between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The latter is associated with socialism; very much a negligible force within the states. A liberal would therefore favor an activist state that seeks to combat discrimination within society via affirmative action and laws against gender discrimination. Liberals would also be supportive of the government allocating resources in order to help the struggling middle-class.

                Liberals also favor the advancement of civil rights in the states. During the 1950s and 60s, civil rights came to be associated with the empowerment of African-Americans. By the 1970s, the term had widened towards female emancipation. In the contemporary era, it also incorporates LGBT groups. A liberal would therefore support gay marriage and criticize attempts by the religious right to 'pray Gays away.' They might also promote laws that seek to prevent homophobia and trans-phobia within the workplace. In terms of women’s rights, liberals are pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Women should have the right to take a decision that affects their own body. Liberals also support laws to prevent sexism in the workplace.

                Another facet of liberalism relates to the place of religion within American society. Whilst liberals strongly support the first amendment rights concerning freedom of worship, they are also mindful that religious dogma can provide the basis for the tyranny of the majority. Liberals thereby seek to emphasize the wall of separation between church and state, and seek to ensure that people from minority religions (and atheists) do not face negative discrimination.

                In contrast to their liberal opponents, conservatives adopt a more traditionalist mindset. Conservatives are more inclined to adopt a skeptical view of human nature than their liberal counterparts. The various agents of the state should therefore be utilized in order to keep the negative forces of human nature in check. This may for instance translate to high levels of spending on the police, defense and national security. Conservatives routinely claim that liberals are soft on crime and weak on national security.

                By inclination and temperament, conservatives favor the status quo. They prefer the accumulated wisdom of previous generations to liberal-inspired schemes based on abstract concepts such as fairness and equal opportunities. Most conservatives would concur with Samuel Johnson’s famous argument that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Conservatives tend to be skeptical of government agencies that seek to interfere in the marketplace (such as the Environmental Protection Agency), claiming that such agencies routinely serve vested interests (such as the Department of Education in relation to teaching unions). Conservatives are therefore more favorable towards laissez-faire economics than their liberal opponents.

                Most figures within the religious right could be labeled social conservatives who seek to rescue America from the moral pollution generated by the heathen forces of liberal-secularism. To take one example, gay marriage is seen as inconsistent with religious teachings (namely Leviticus 18:22 “thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”). During the noughties George W. Bush was particularly successful at using religion to reach out towards values voters (particularly Latinos who might otherwise have voted for the Democrats). The dominance of religious values within the Republican Party is such that some commentators claim that GOP really stands for God’s Own Party.

                A great deal of liberal discourse is grounded in support for rights and freedom, whereas conservatives are more likely to use words such as duties and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, one of the chief criticisms made by conservatives is that liberals place too much emphasis upon rights. This can result in a form of excessive individualism which ultimately unravels the bonds of society. It can also result in a demand that minority rights should outweigh the reasonable objections of the silent majority. Republicans have often sought to portray their Democrat opponents as beholden to strident minority/marginalized groups. This line of argument is particularly noticeable from conservative talk-show hosts.

                Most liberal politicians tend to be found within the Democratic Party. Liberal Republicans, once a key element within the GOP; are very much on the wane. The dwindling number of liberal Republicans is almost entirely located within blue states in the union, such as those in the North-East. For instance, Maine has recently replaced Olympia Snowe for Susan Collins; both of whom could be described as liberal Republicans. As one might expect, social and fiscal conservatives tend to be found within the GOP. Whilst a number of southern conservatives continue the Dixiecrat tradition, their numbers are also on the wane. Both parties have adopted a more ideologically pure stance since the downfall of the New Deal in the late-1960s. This reflects the phenomenon of ideological polarization, an issue that casts a lengthy shadow over American politics.

                It is also worth noting that the use of the word liberal has becoming something of a negative since the 1980s. Liberalism is at times associated with a major role for the federal government; to the extent that Bill Clinton sought to distance the Democrats from this toxic label by stating that “the era of big government is over.” Liberalism is also associated in the minds of many Americans with an aggressive secularism and shrill feminism somewhat at odds with the rest of the population. Thirdly, liberals are regularly labeled as elitist and therefore out-of-touch with ordinary everyday Joes. Republicans claim to champion the common-sense values of God-fearing, Church-going folk against the liberal-secularism of the Democrats. Republicans such as Reagan and George W. Bush were particularly skilled at packaging themselves in a folksy manner at ease with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

By way of contrast, conservatives are labeled by their opponents as either callous, religious extremists or reactionary Archie Bunker-type figures who just don’t get climate change or the need to limit gun ownership. Democrats can find that it pays electoral dividends to present their Republican rivals as out-of-touch with the everyday concerns of Americans struggling to survive from one pay check to the next. That said; an overt emphasis upon class warfare does not play well in the states. Americans do not resent wealth-creators. Indeed, we often admire displays of wealth as a just reward for hard work and enterprise. Most Americans simply want a fair chance to create wealth for themselves and their family. Either way, it is the task of the informed student to look beyond simplistic labels when seeking to properly comprehend ideological debate within the states.

Ideological spectrum

                According to CNN those born between 1978 and the year 2000 are the western world’s first post-ideological generation, in which the stuffy ideological labels of the past hold little resonance. For those of you from the millennial generation, I would argue that it’s impossible to comprehend contemporary politics without some grounding in the ideological spectrum. Conventionally, the ideological spectrum is depicted in terms of a dichotomy between left-right on the horizontal axis, and authoritarian-libertarian on the vertical axis. This conventional approach is still widely used and at least has the merit of familiarity. The more nuanced approach is a horseshoe model, which seeks to reflect the similarities between an extreme left regime and one based upon right-wing extremism. As this is a moot point within the states, the conventional approach offers greater validity to us (Bloor, 2010).

                One of the striking features of American exceptionalism is the absence of a major socialist party. There are several reasons for this. Of these, arguably the most significant is that socialism is incompatible with the American mindset. Socialism awards a higher value to collectivist action, and yet the individual, as opposed to the collective; is commonly presented as the hero throughout the historical narrative of our country. It was rugged individualism that made America what it is; a lesson learned quite literally from kindergarten. We are also encouraged to believe that we can achieve the American Dream by either the Divine Hand of religion, or the invisible hand of the free-market (note the absence from either of collective action).

Secondly, socialism is fundamentally a critique of capitalism whereas America has long been a champion of the free market. Many Americans have been attracted to our land of opportunity in which taxation is low and state intervention is minimal. To many people, socialism itself is therefore un-American. Moreover, it doesn’t take much by international standards for a liberal Democrat to be labeled in such terms. One would only have to consider the Affordable Care Act. By European standards, Obamacare entails no more than a modest set of proposals but to many Americans the scheme is ‘Marxist.’

Other reasons for the absence of a socialist party relate to the role of the Democrats themselves and their source of funding. Left-wing policies have on certain occasions been adopted by the Democrats rather than from a major socialist party. Moreover, trade unions have donated money to the Democrats rather than a left-wing party akin to the British Labour Party. One would also have to consider the barriers which exist towards the creation of a third party. The ability of wealthy groups to dominate the political process may also be considered. For a Marxist interpretation (Marx and Engels, 1848), one might identify the existence of false consciousness. American society is divided more by ethnicity than social class (Enriquez, 2005), and ethnic enclaves thwart the emergence of a shared class consciousness.

                Despite what has been argued above, America does have a left-wing! It makes perfect sense to describe the Democrats as a party of the left within the states even though they have little in common with social democratic parties in other comparable democracies. The political gravity of the states is titled firmly towards the right. In a country widely depicted as center-right, Democrats seek to implement policies and promote a discourse that would in many other countries be described as conservative or right-wing. Indeed, the Democrats have sought to uphold capitalism when a socialist alternative might have been a practical option (such as during the Great Depression and the credit crunch).

Left-wing Democrats such as Patrick Leahy are more likely to represent areas geographically and politically far away from the mainstream (Vermont in the case of Leahy). At the present time, there is one independent in the Senate (Angus King) and he caucuses with the Democrats. As one might expect, he represents a state from the North-East. Other left-wing figures within the party include Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Once again, it is important to note that they are left-wing in the context of American politics. By international standards, most Democrats would belong to center-right or centrist parties.

In the contemporary era, the main division within the party is that between left-wing Democrats and new Democrats. The former seeks to uphold and expand elements of the New Deal. This gives left-wing Democrats a peculiarly defensive tone. In seeking to adopt a progressive agenda, they often appear to be defending that which has come before. For instance, they can appear instinctively conservative over proposed reforms to entitlement spending. New Democrats emerged during the 1980s in response to a decline in the party’s fortunes. The Democrats had won just one presidential election since the demise of the New Deal alliance in the late-1960s, and that was by a cat’s whisker. New Democrats claimed that the party needed to detoxify the party brand due to its association with vocal minority groups, aggressive secularism and a ‘tax and spend’ approach to social problems. They claimed the party had become detached from many of its core supporters, particularly white voters. Republican figures such as Reagan and Nixon had also managed to reach out towards white Democrats dissatisfied with the direction the party was heading in. Indeed, the ‘great communicator’ admitted that he was once a supporter of the New Deal; but became disenchanted due to its association with big government.

In terms of the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum, it is difficult to properly identify the location of new Democrats and left-wing Democrats. The party itself is to some extent more authoritarian than the GOP, in that they are more willing to utilize the government in order to ensure a fairer society. Naturally, this comes with certain caveats. Democrats would therefore be favorable towards the government implementing affirmative action. They would however be opposed to the government promoting a Christian fundamentalist message. Moreover, there are divisions within the party over the extent of state intervention. For instance, a left-wing Democrat would take a Keynesian approach to the management of the economy. In contrast, new Democrats are more favorable towards de-regulation and privatization.

The Democrats are to some extent a rainbow coalition consisting of those on the left (such as labor unions) and those figures located nearer the center of the political spectrum (such as the Democrat Leadership Council). The party has a recognizable split between the left and the center, but the division between a libertarian-left and an authoritarian-left within the party is harder to identify. Obama is conventionally located on the left of the political spectrum, although he has disappointed some on the left of the party over issues ranging from civil liberties to his dealings with the financial services industry. It is however too simplistic to label Obama as a moderate Democrat either. He plays an adroit political game with both wings of the Democrats, offering something to both sides whilst seeking to avoid becoming beholden to either.

Figures on the right of the political spectrum are primarily located within the Republican Party, although there are a small number of Blue Dog Democrats from the south (such as John Barrow from Georgia and Henry Cueller from Texas). The political gravity of the GOP is further to the right than other comparable conservative parties in the world. For instance, a British conservative may find little ideological common ground with a social conservative from the GOP. David Cameron’s stance on a number of issues may even have more in common with Barack Obama than many prominent members of the Republican Party.

The divisions within the Republican Party are in part ideological, and in part one of background. On a conventional level, there is a clear observable split between moderates and those further to the right of the party. The most overt wedge issue within the party is that of reproductive rights. Figures from the religious right usually oppose abortion under any circumstances, whereas moderates adopt a more pragmatic approach. Moderates and right-wing Republicans are also divided over the issue of government spending. Fiscal conservatives such as Paul Broun and Paul Ryan wish to limit the role of the state, whereas moderates such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney believe that government spending can be used to promote Republican goals such as defending our national security. Divisions within the party over government spending escalated under the Bush administration, a move that mirrors an earlier division under his father’s presidency over the issue of abortion.

There is also a division within the GOP in terms of background. Of a more subtle character than the heat generated by ideological disagreements, it is an important division nonetheless. To begin with, the party establishment is more likely to adopt a moderate stance. This ‘Country Club’ Republicanism is distinct to the more right-wing approach of the rank-and-file. The former reflects the traditional North-Eastern flavor of the party hierarchy, whereas ordinary members demonstrate a more southern-fried populist character. These divisions within the party were laid bare during the 1992 convention, when the patrician George Bush senior clashed with the robust rhetoric of Pat Buchanan. 

The two main parties are the quintessential illustration of broad church parties. This means they adopt a fairly loose ideological character in order to appeal to as many voters as possible. Studies show that most voters congregate around the center of the political spectrum, so it makes rational sense for a party seeking elected office to lean towards the center. Given the wide ideological character of the two parties, it seems inevitable that divisions within the parties are as significant as those between the main parties.

In such a vast country, there is also a regional dimension to consider. The politics of the south are more conservative than the rest of the union, particularly in regards to social issues. In contrast, politics in the North-East is dominated by a liberal mindset. In order to gain elected office in the Bible Belt, a Democrat may well adopt a socially conservative stance. They may also be forced to adopt a pro-gun stance in contrast to most of their fellow Democrats. A clear illustration of this point is Jon Tester, who represents the traditionally red state of Montana. It should of course be noted that not all politicians are necessarily driven by ideological fervor. For many ambitious politicians, a prudent approach to the adaptation of party labels may well be the best course of action to take. This is partly reflected by the propensity of some figures to switch party labels (such as Nathan Deal and Arlen Spencer).

Third parties

                Somewhat surprisingly, there are quite a high number of third or minor parties within the states. Third parties cover all corners of the political spectrum from the extreme left to the libertarian right. The number of third parties however belie their actual significance. In truth, the impact of third parties is almost entirely centered upon the spoiler effect and what Richard Hofstadter called the ‘sting and die’ phenomenon. This observation applies to almost all levels of governance. Third parties are usually the repository of protest votes, and whilst they can shape the agenda to some extent; they rarely gain above 1% of the vote. Moreover, this figure almost entirely derives from the Libertarian Party from the right of the political spectrum.

                The spoiler effect refers to the phenomenon of third party candidates effectively determining the winner of an election by taking votes away from a more prominent candidate. For instance, a third party candidate from the right may take votes away from the Republican candidate. In doing so, they act as a spoiler and thereby help the Democrat candidate gain victory. Similarly, a third party candidate from the left may take votes away from a Democrat and therefore help a candidate from the GOP. The irony of the spoiler effect is therefore obvious. A third party candidate from the right (such as Ross Perot in 1992) ultimately undermines the right-wing agenda. Indeed, by splitting the right-wing vote Perot effectively enabled Clinton gain entry to the White House. Ross Perot was part of a broader conservative challenge against George Bush senior, which only served to portray the Democrats in a better light than their Republican opponents. Similarly, the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader split the left-wing vote in 2000 and thereby helped George W. Bush in that election.

                The ‘sting and die’ phenomenon relates to the tendency of third party candidates to wither away after raising an issue they are most closely associated with. Once the two main parties have clarified their position on that particular issue, the momentum behind the third party candidate is effectively lost. There is no better illustration of this point than Ross Perot in 1992 and the budget deficit. Perot raised an issue that many people felt had been side-lined by politicians in DC. However, Perot’s campaign stalled once George Bush senior and Bill Clinton began to take the budget deficit more seriously. The issue also lost momentum during that year when the state legislatures failed to meet the barrier needed for a constitutional amendment in favor of a balanced budget.

                Unlike other comparable democracies, the US lacks a significant third party. The last third party presidential candidate to gain any EC votes was back in 1968. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps the most important is that of a wasted vote. A voter from the libertarian-right of the political spectrum is more likely to support a Republican candidate rather than vote for say the Libertarian Party. The latter course of action risks letting the Democrats in. Similarly, a voter on the progressive side of the political spectrum is likely to support the Democrat candidate (even a moderate new Democrat) rather than wasting their vote on say the Green Party. Until there is a sufficient incentive to support a third party candidate, voters will invariably choose from either the Republicans or the Democrats.

                Another obvious factor to consider is that of money. It is difficult for a third party to emerge as a significant force within American politics because of the difficulty in gaining adequate finance. Donors have little reason to give money to third party candidates when the chances of electoral success remain slim. It makes much more sense to donate money to candidates from either the GOP or the Democrats, preferably an incumbent likely to win that particular election. In doing so, they are likely to get some return from their ‘investment.’

                There is quite frankly insufficient oxygen within the American system to offer any lasting hope to third parties. For instance, there is no chance of a third party acting as a Kingmaker in a coalition. The dominance of the two main parties is such that no third party can effectively broker power between them. Given the weakness of party labels, it is also possible for politicians of an independent mind to adopt either of the party labels. On balance, third parties could well be described as glorified pressure groups whose appeal is limited to the disaffected or mavericks (such as Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader and Lincoln Chaffee). In addition, America is unlike many other liberal democracies in that no major third party advocates separatism.

The Democrats

                Compared to the Republicans, it is more difficult to properly label the Democrat Party in historical terms. They were originally the party more sympathetic to the confederacy, although the party is now more supportive of intervention by the federal government. It was also the party more closely associated with slavery and yet today the party receives overwhelming support from African-Americans. Of the two main parties, it is the Democrats that have been the more heterogeneous. That said; there are some common themes and policies one might identify in the modern era as distinctly Democrat.

                In terms of abortion, the party could be classed as pro-choice. Most of the party adopts a socially liberal position on this controversial issue. Democrats are broadly united behind Hillary Clinton’s comment that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Pro-life Democrats are more likely to be standing for elected office in red states (such as those in the Bible Belt). The Democrats often seek to highlight their liberal approach against what they see as the moralistic ‘preachy’ attitude adopted by the GOP. Incidentally, the party’s pro-choice position plays well amongst female voters. During the 2012 election, the gender gap was just over 10%.

                The Democrats could also be described as the party more favorable towards state expenditure. Democrats claim that the government can help to ensure a fairer chance for those disadvantaged or marginalized in some way. Since the New Deal, the party has been associated with policies designed to help the struggling middle-class. During a campaign, Democrats often seek to portray their Republican opponents as the party of the rich placing the needs of Wall Street above that of Main Street. However, there is also a clear division within the Democrats on the issue of state expenditure. New Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Al From believe that the party has been damaged by an association with high levels of government spending (and the high levels of taxation required to fund it). New Democrats seek to limit government spending in order to avoid being labeled as ‘tax and spend’ liberals. Those further to the left of the party however seek to defend and even expand elements of the New Deal.

                The division between new Democrats and those further to the left has been a key theme of the Obama administration. Under Obama, there has been a significant expansion in the role of the state from the fiscal stimulus, the bank bail-out, the student loan forgiveness package and the Affordable Care Act. New Democrats have at times been critical of these measures. For instance, Bill Clinton has publically warned Obama about presenting the party as seemingly engaged in class warfare against the wealthy. It was Clinton who most clearly exemplified the centrist approach when he famously said that “the era of big government is over.”

                As a socially progressive party, the Democrats are relatively united on the issue of affirmative action. Democrats throughout the country are favorable towards positive discrimination. They argue that minority groups and women have been and continue to be disadvantaged within society. Government action is thereby needed in order to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live out the American Dream. Revealingly, the Lilly Ledbetter Act (2009) was the very first bill signed into law by President Obama and was widely supported within the party. Affirmative action on the basis of race is also supported by most Democrats to combat prejudice within society. Many Democrats would argue that racial advantage is needed to combat racial disadvantage. Half a century after Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech” over a quarter of all black people live in poverty, the level of unemployment amongst black people is twice that of white people and the number of black prisoners outnumbers those of white people by six to one (figures taken from Urban Institute and the Economic Policy Institute). According to prominent Democrats such as Bill Clinton; affirmative action should be “mended, not ended.”

                The Democrats are broadly in favor of extending civil rights to gay and lesbian people. This even extends to support for gay marriage, a controversial issue within our society and one that exposes something of a generational divide. The party has shifted towards a firmer position on the issue in recent times, in part to mobilize its core vote. The party’s stance on this issue has been mirrored by Obama himself. Initially, President Obama said it was down to the states to define what a marriage should be. However, he later argued that marriage should in his opinion consist of a union between a man and a woman. In his first term, Obama repealed DADT. By the time of the 2012 election, Obama publically endorsed gay marriage. This marked a significant moment within the history of civil rights for LGBT people, with Newsweek declaring Obama as very first ‘gay President.’

                Of the two main parties, the Democrats are the more sympathetic towards gun control. Figures such as Barack Obama and Gabrielle Giffords claim that restrictions are needed in order to limit the damage caused by such weapons. For many Democrats, one of the most serious issues facing America is that many people ignore the first thirteen words of the second amendment and instead view the right to own a gun as sacrosanct. Given the influence of the gun lobby in the states, attempts by Democrats to restrict gun ownership can be difficult to implement. Gun control measures tend to be based upon criteria such as age, criminal activity and mental health issues. Calls for tighter regulation usually gain momentum after a tragic shoot-out that captures the nation’s interest.

                Traditionally a less homogenous party than the GOP, it is a credit to the political skills of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that the party has presented itself in a unified manner as opposed to a rainbow coalition of diverse groups. That said; the presidential candidate for 2016 will have to unite a potentially disparate range of groups such as labor unions, LGBT organizations, feminist groups, Hispanic caucuses and so on. The party is also more ethnically mixed in terms of its supporters than the GOP; which can in itself present certain tensions. Moreover, the party faces wedge issues of a similar magnitude to the Republicans (notably over the role of the state).

                The Democrats have experienced better fortunes than their Republican rivals since the late-noughties. The party gained both chambers in 2006 which enabled them to place a limit upon the Bush presidency. 2008 represented the zenith of the party’s achievements in the 21^st century thus far, taking the White House and both chambers of Congress. However; the party failed to win the House in 2010, 2012 and 2014. The result of the 2012 presidential election was of course a clear triumph for the party, and one made all the more remarkable given the state of the economy. It is testimony to the fluctuating character of American politics that one can talk about a new era of Democrat predominance. Less than a decade ago, the long-term prospects for the Democrats appeared grim after George W. Bush had gained the most votes ever received by a presidential candidate (Frank, 2004). The only consistent observation one might make is that the pendulum invariably swings from one party to the next. Neither party has established itself as the dominant party in the contemporary era.

                Before I end this post, it is worth noting that both main parties are broadly similar on a range of issues. For example, both parties support capitalism and seek to uphold the Constitution. The division between the parties on these issues is merely one of emphasis. For instance, the Democrats believe that state intervention is needed to uphold capitalism as an economic system. The New Deal is a classic illustration of this argument, although the assistance provided under the Obama administration to the car industry and the banking sector could also be considered. Republicans however feel that the marketplace is self-regulating, and that the government should get off our backs in order to let capitalism thrive. Republicans often try to portray the Democrats as socialistic, whereas Democrats however claim that the GOP sides with the rich and powerful. To use the analogy offered by Geoff Mulgan (2013), Democrats try to present their Republican opponents as representatives of the locusts (or predators), whilst portraying themselves as on the side of the worker bees (or creators). One can identify this analogy in Obama’s argument that business people did not build their organization alone. These arguments should not however detract us from the observation that a cross-party consensus exists within the states over the desirability of capitalism as the best economic system available.

The Republican Party

                Having covered elections, it seems logical to shift the focus towards political parties in the states. One of the most striking features of American politics is the extent to which two parties dominate the electoral process. By international standards, there are scarcely any clearer illustrations of a two-party system. Third/minor parties and independents have a negligible impact upon American elections. In the US; it really is a two-horse race between the Democrats and the Republican Party (or Grand Old Party).

                The GOP emerged as a federalist, anti-slavery party based predominantly in the north. In the contemporary era, it is closely associated with the mindset of conservatism. As with any catch-all political party, there are various strands of conservatism within the GOP such as social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. As with the Democrats, it can be difficult to identify common themes or policies throughout the whole of the country. This is why the US has been depicted as a one hundred and two-party system (all the states plus Washington DC times by the two parties) because local parties have considerable freedom from the central level. Equally, the US has been described as a no-party system due to the relatively loose ideological character of the main parties. Neither term suggests that the two main parties can be easily categorized.

                Having said all this, it has become easier to identify common themes to both main parties due to the phenomenon of ideological polarization. Of these, perhaps the most significant is that the GOP is pro-life on the issue of abortion. Described as the last great divide between the main parties, Republicans throughout the country are broadly opposed to abortion. Those Republicans who adopt a pro-choice stance (primarily those standing for election in blue parts of the union) are often labeled RINOs. Generally speaking, the Republican Party has shifted towards a more socially conservative position in recent decades. The key reason has been the influence of the religious right within the party since the 1980s.

                The second key theme running through the party is a commitment towards relatively low levels of taxation relating to income and inherited wealth. Taxes placed upon negative externalities (such as pollution) are however more acceptable. The GOP has focused its policies upon reducing progressive taxation in order to stimulate economic growth. Fiscal conservatives claim that lower levels of taxation generate greater levels of wealth. They also believe that economic activity from higher-income earners benefits everyone. This is called trickle-down economics, and has been a major theme within the party since the Reagan era.

                The obvious consequence of lower taxation is a reduction in government spending. However, it would be going too far to claim that the party is ideologically opposed to public expenditure. Whilst the GOP tends to oppose entitlement spending on welfare, they do favor high levels of spending upon defense. The level of expenditure upon the military grew to unprecedented levels under George W. Bush, and during the 2012 election Mitt Romney pledged to increase spending on the military. It is also worth noting that the party may at times favor raising benefits in certain areas (perhaps for electorally-significant groups such as senior citizens). Government schemes or concessions designed to help military veterans also tend to find a supportive audience amongst Republicans.

                The party could also be described as more favorable towards the free market than the Democrats. It was the GOP that pioneered a laissez-faire approach to the economy during the Reagan/Bush era (1980-1992). Policies such as de-regulation, privatization and a flexible labor market are much more likely to be adopted by Republicans than liberal Democrats. The GOP claims that freeing up the market ensures that wealth is created more effectively. As such, state intervention should always be kept to a minimum. Far from helping the poor, the welfare state creates a dependency culture and erodes any sense of individual responsibility. State provision of goods and services is generally viewed as ineffective due to the absence of a profit motive.

                Another broadly consistent theme within the GOP concerns affirmative action. Republicans are largely opposed to special measures designed to help minority groups such as African-Americans and Latinos. They believe that state intervention within the workplace is contrary to the rugged individualism that shaped our great nation. The Republican stance on affirmative action could therefore be located within a broader framework concerning opposition to government interference. That said; the GOP wasn’t always opposed to positive discrimination. Richard Nixon promoted affirmative action under his presidency; believing such schemes would offer an escalator to accommodate minorities on the widening edges of prosperity. Nixon’s support for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (to this day the single greatest development in affirmative action) caught the Keynesian spirit of the time. In the modern Republican Party however, state intervention to assist minority groups is viewed negatively as its crowds on narrower steps. Fiscal conservatives claim that employment levels amongst black people would increase if the government simply stopped interfering in the marketplace. A more ‘liberal’ interpretation might be that the GOP no longer believes it can appeal to certain ethnic minorities.

In terms of gay marriage, the Republicans seek to defend the traditional definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman designed for the procreation and raising of children. Same-sex marriage is thereby contrary to God’s wider plan. Having said this, there are some figures within the party who adopt a more tolerant stance. The media often seeks to emphasize those examples whereby a family member of a prominent Republican is openly gay (such as one of Dick Cheney’s daughters) or supports gay marriage (such as Barbara Bush – the daughter of George W. Bush).

                The final issue to consider is the whole arena of gun control. Republicans are more likely to oppose gun control measures. They claim that the second amendment is essential towards the maintenance of individual freedom. It is the inalienable constitutional right of every adult American to protect themselves and their families. Gun ownership also ensures that the government cannot impose tyranny on the people, a deep-seated fear within the American mindset.

                Not surprisingly, there are many issues that divide the party rather than unite it (a comment also applicable to the Democrats). Given the decentralized character of American politics and the federal system, this is to be expected. Even in a period characterized by ideological polarization, there are still a wide number of wedge issues within the two main parties. However, it should be noted that in recent years the GOP has been more divided than their opponents. The key schism within the party has centered upon the role of the state. Social conservatives seek to utilize the state in order to rescue America from the moral pollution of liberal-secularism, whereas fiscal conservatives seek to roll back the state from the economic realm. Fiscal conservatives are more likely to emphasize economic rather than social issues, with some budget hawks adopting a surprisingly libertarian angle upon questions of morality.

                The Republican Party has experienced mixed fortunes since the beginning of this century. In the aftermath of 9/11, the country rallied around the President and sought security in an uncertain world. During the mid-term elections of 2002 the GOP achieved something quite remarkable by gaining seats in both chambers. George W. Bush also gained a second term, this time winning the popular vote against his Democrat rival. However, the tide began to turn against the Republican Party by the 2006 mid-terms (traditionally dubbed the ‘six year itch’ when applied to a two-term President). The Democrats won back both chambers during the lame-duck stage of Bush’s presidency. The 2008 election was of course a clear defeat for the party. They lost the race for the White House and failed to gain control of either chamber of Congress. For a brief time, the Democrats even held a supermajority in the upper chamber. The GOP’s brief respite in 2010 (gaining control of the House) failed to mark a significant breakthrough for the party, and Mitt Romney lost out to Obama in 2012. The Democrats maintained control of the upper chamber, and the GOP retained control of the House.

                The 2012 election marked something of a nadir for the GOP. The party failed to get its presidential candidate elected despite serious concerns over the state of the economy and the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, the failure of the party to reach out towards minorities, women and younger voters suggests that the party really does need to broaden its appeal. The 2012 presidential election was the fifth time the party had failed to win a majority of the national vote out of its last six attempts. This statistic is all the more galling given that the country is in ideological terms a broadly center-right country (Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 2005). That said, the GOP gained back control of the Senate in the 2014 mid-term elections; which may eventually mark a return to fortune for them.

Direct democracy

               

                There are two main types of democracy; direct and indirect. Under the latter, politicians are elected to represent the people. This is the most common form of democracy, and is clearly the most suited to countries with large populations. Direct democracy however occurs when the will of the people is directly translated into policy. This form of democracy is widely used throughout the world. In America however, direct democracy is limited to those states that allow it. Nationwide plebiscites are actually prohibited by the Constitution. The founding fathers believed that national plebiscites might be used to undermine the rights of individuals and minority groups.

                When considering the whole area of direct democracy, one must distinguish between an indirect initiative (where citizens draft a proposal and present it to the state legislature) and a direct initiative (where a draft proposal goes straight to a public ballot). The constitutionality of a proposition may well come to the attention of the judicial branch. Pressure groups unhappy at the wording of a proposition routinely adopt the legal route, and this can at times be successful for that particular pressure group. Propositions that catch the headlines tend to be held on controversial issues such as gay marriage, immigration measures, reproductive rights, affirmative action and the legalization of marijuana. Propositions can mobilize a wide number of pressure groups and other relevant organizations. Politicians will also be involved in some manner. At the very least, a politician will almost certainly be asked about their stance on the issue(s) at hand.

                There are various arguments in favor of direct democracy; and of course many against. Perhaps the most interesting point to consider is their impact upon democracy. At first glance, direct democracy provides a means by which to address the democratic deficit. A proposition could be described as the distilled essence of people power. The demos can directly affect public policy in some manner without recourse to elected politicians or the broader political process. However, propositions can of course result in the tyranny of the majority. To take one noted example, proposition 187 held in California over the status of illegal immigrants in the mid-90s impinged negatively upon a marginalized group within society. Historically, referendums (to use the more generic term for examples of direct democracy) have been used within autocratic regimes to target minority groups.

                Direct democracy also makes the task of governance much more complex. There are few better examples to consider than California. The tax constraints imposed upon law-makers makes the golden state virtually ungovernable; and may well have contributed to cities like Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino having declared bankruptcy. California also provides the classic illustration of the problems inherent with direct democracy. Proposition 13 (held way back in 1978) seems to exemplify in a succinct manner all that can go wrong when the demos are asked to shape policy in such a direct manner.

                From the opposing angle, propositions could be seen as a welcome addition to the democratic arsenal held by people living in the states. They enable the public to directly influence decisions that affect their lives. That said; our support or otherwise for direct democracy relates to our view of the general public. The demos do not necessarily reach decisions on a rational or impartial basis. Indeed, voters can at times adopt a prejudicary mindset that may well undermine the civil rights of minority groups. Elected representatives might actually adopt a more tolerant and enlightened perspective that reflects the best of what democracy should be about; as opposed to the public who can adopt a hostile attitude towards those who are somehow ‘different’ from the norm. This is particularly noticeable during a time when the public feel threatened in some manner (perhaps via terrorism or when their jobs are being ‘lost’ to illegal immigrants). One would only have to consider the aforementioned proposition 187 held in California which was described at the time as the SOS (Save Our State) initiative. The use of such alarmist discourse plays on fears amongst white people at losing out to Hispanics and other minority groups. 

Fixed terms

                Although fixed terms are hardly unique to American elections, they remain one of its most well-known features. The obvious starting point relates to the Head of State, who can serve no more than two consecutive terms. This would normally equate to eight years. However, he may have been vice-president before winning his first election. As such, it is technically possible for a President to serve the best part of three terms as Head of State. The idea of placing a limit upon the duration of the presidency dates back to a convention set by George Washington. It later became a constitutional requirement after FDR broke the convention during the Second World War. Placing a limit upon power is consistent with the broader ethos of the founding fathers.

                Members of the House and the Senate do not face any such constraint. In rare cases, this has led to a member of Congress serving for a considerable length of time. For instance, Strom Thurmond stayed in his post until the grand old age of 101. John Dingell (D) of Michigan holds the record for the longest congressional tenure in history, having been a member of the House from 1955 to 2015. There have however been attempts to place term limits upon members of Congress. During the Republican Party’s ascent to power in 1994, term limits were a central plank of their ‘Contract with America.’ It was proposed that an incumbent would serve no longer than twelve years (two terms for a Senator, six for a House representative). However, the proposed constitutional amendment did not gain a sufficient majority. The proposal also faced opposition from the judicial branch of government, when the Supreme Court ruled against attempts by the states to impose term limits on congressional members in the case of US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton (1995). Term limits do however apply to other levels of governance depending upon the state in question.

                The issue of term limits is a marginal one within American politics. Although the public dislike Congress, they often re-elect their congressional representatives from one election to the next. This apparent paradox is captured in the old cliché that ‘Americans hate Congress but love their congressmen.’ Secondly, elected representatives from both main parties have a clear interest in maintaining the status quo. This makes reform very difficult to achieve. Politicians may pay lip-service to the idea, but they are highly unlikely to support measures that undermine their power unless they truly have to. It must also be noted that the public (and pressure groups) are insufficiently motivated to demand such a radical change, placing a higher priority upon issues such as abortion and gun rights.

                A deeper exploration of fixed terms raises some intriguing questions. The first question seems the most obvious; ‘does it matter?’ The problem raised by an absence of fixed terms of course is that incumbents may become complacent. An elected member of the House, secure in the knowledge that congressional districts have been drawn for purely partisan benefit; may offer a poorer service to their constituents than an incumbent facing a genuine contest every two years. Such reasoning itself rests upon subjective opinion. Moreover, an incumbent always faces a number of factors that would prevent them becoming too complacent. For one, they could be found guilty of corruption via the House Ethics Committee. Secondly, they may be vulnerable to a challenger during a primary. Pressure groups will of course shine a light on their activities, and media scrutiny will always keep them very much on their toes. Moreover, some states even have recall elections, a procedure which goes some way towards addressing the democratic deficit. Taken together, the argument that an absence of fixed terms leads to complacent incumbents in Congress appears a little thin.

                Another argument to consider is that fixed terms would enable younger politicians to break through. Older politicians may well be seen as ‘bed blockers’ preventing the next generation from coming forth towards the congressional stage. Once again, this rests on somewhat shaky foundations. Younger politicians are not necessarily any better than those with more experience. Indeed, the public may prefer an old warhorse who knows how the game works in Washington DC. This was certainly true in South Carolina, where the aforementioned Strom Thurmond remained in his post for almost half a century. Nonetheless, the opportunities to break through into the federal legislature are by definition limited. Some level of staff turnover is needed in order for each generation to establish themselves in the rough and tumble world of congressional politics. Moreover, a legislature dominated by older members does not fully represent American society. This observation is central towards the resemblance model of representation.

Safe seats and swing states

                America uses the single majoritarian system to elect virtually all of its representatives. The inherent problem with this particular method is that it can lead to safe seats whereby the winning party is effectively known before the contest is held. A system of proportional representation would ensure that no vote is wasted, but the prospect of electoral reform along such lines is negligible due to vested interests of the Republican-Democrat duopoly. There is also little public demand for a European-style system of proportional representation.

                Safe seats emerge by virtue of one party dominating in that particular constituency. Both parties have their strongholds. Broadly speaking, the Republicans are strongest in Middle America. They also dominate rural areas and wealthy suburbs. In contrast, the Democrats are strongest on the West Coast and the North-East. They are also the dominant party in the cities and Universities. 

                 No electoral system can entirely prevent the emergence of safe seats. As such, it would seem appropriate to ask ‘why the emergence of safe seats is problematic at all?’, given that the majority of those who vote in that constituency have consistently voted for a particular party. Well, safe seats are problematic in that they may lead to a relatively low turnout. People may feel there is very little point in exercising their democratic right when the winner is virtually guaranteed. This is not a healthy situation for any democracy, although it must be acknowledged that safe seats are a phenomenon common to all democratic societies. It must also be noted that American citizens have the freedom not to vote.

The issue of safe seats is particularly evident in the House of Representatives, where constituencies are often drawn deliberately in order to guarantee the winner. This cynical stitch-up suits both parties, in that they each get a slice of the electoral pie; but gerrymandering inevitably diminishes the number of genuinely competitive elections being held in the states. Vast swathes of the country are therefore electoral deserts for a particular party. A liberal Democrat candidate seeking office in one of the grazing states has as little chance of victory as a conservative Republican in a deprived inner-city area with a high number of ethnic minorities.

Safe seats invariably exacerbate the trend towards ideological polarization. With little chance of defeat in a general election, incumbents must adopt a firmly conservative or solidly liberal perspective in order to ward off potential defeat in a primary. Increasingly, the only genuine prospect of defeat is via a primary. When the victor is often known in advance, elected representatives have little incentive to reach out towards the middle ground or consider an alternative ideological position. Indeed, it makes rational sense for the incumbent to look after 'the folks back home' via pork-barrel politics whilst looking over his/her shoulder in case of defeat during a primary.

                The issue of safe seats is obviously less of a problem for elections to the Senate (where gerrymandering cannot by definition occur) and during a presidential election. However, it is still the case that a large number of states vote the same way from one presidential election to the next. Candidates therefore allocate their time and resources to those states which may swing from one party to another such as Ohio or Florida. In a tight contest, swing states can effectively decide the result. This is particularly the case when that state holds a high number of EC votes. Allocating time and resources in such a disproportionate manner effectively marginalizes safe states during a presidential election. Surely no candidate will ever make the same mistake as Richard Nixon did in 1960 when he pledged to campaign in all 50 states?

                In the specific context of a presidential election, demographic changes may well lead towards a particular state moving from the safe column towards a genuine electoral contest between the Democrats and the GOP. At the time of writing, the Lone Star state could eventually become a real contest between the two parties if the number of Hispanics (traditionally Democrat voters) continues to grow. Equally, some states can move from the swing column to a relatively safe seat. For instance, Missouri used to be the textbook example of a swing state. However, the ‘show me state’ last voted for a Democrat presidential candidate back in 1996.