2012年10月11日 星期四

Why Partisan Voting Makes Accountability Impossible

As the 2012 election nears,Allows you to securely organize any group of cable ties or wires. we are frequently reminded of the role partisanship plays in elections. As in other recent presidential elections,High quality mold making Videos teaches anyone how to make molds. most states are proving to be consistently either "red" or "blue," with only a few being "swing states." The New York Times reported in August that "the actual share of voters nationally who are up for grabs is probably between just 3 percent and 5 percent in this election.The Beads factory was founded by Viki & Mark Lareau in 1992 ." And just as in other recent congressional elections, most House and Senate seats are likely to continue to be either Republican or Democrat, with very few seats switching parties. The same can be said for most other political offices around the country as well. Clearly, most Americans are partisans and vote the party line most of the time.

Do partisan voters really find that one party always serves their interests, while the other does not? Does a candidate's membership in a voter's preferred party automatically mean that a candidate will work in the voter's best interests, while a candidate from the opposing party will not? Is a partisan label more important than a candidate's qualifications, integrity, and grasp of issues? It seems odd that, despite so many government problems and with people (candidates) and government being so complex, Americans would so consistently use something as simple as party ID to choose who will run our government. What's going on here?

The theoretical justification for political parties is that they allow for collective accountability. Since decisions made in our democratic government require the agreement of numerous people and sometimes multiple branches of government, political parties, so the theory goes, are a way to hold a group of people collectively accountable. The assumption is that voters will maintain a running tally of each party's competence and appeal -- much like consumers do in the marketplace -- then adjust their partisanship based on this and vote accordingly.

But studies by political scientists have consistently found that only rarely do voters change their preferred party over time. People come to identify with a political party at a young age and, despite wars, recessions, and scandals, tend to maintain allegiance to and vote for candidates of that party throughout their life. This is a very important finding that has profound implications for democracy in America.

Political Scientists Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler researched this situation and presented their findings in the book Partisan Hearts and Minds. What they found is that partisanship, rather than being based on objective evaluations of policies and party performance, can best be described as a social group, with the closest analogy being religious groups.

People who belong to a religion or religious denomination tend to adopt that religion early in life based on their family life and early adult socialization. Their choice tends to be made based on circumstance rather than a rigorous evaluation of various alternatives. Then, as members of that religion, they become indoctrinated into that religion's precepts, adhere to its distinctive underlying doctrines, and maintain (to varying degrees) an adversarial relationship toward other religions. Their religious affiliation becomes part of their social identity and self-conception, and tends to remain intact over time.

Party affiliation is similarly adopted early in life based on family life and early adult socialization, although politics may be less central to a person's thinking than religion is. Since political parties are somewhat associated with groups such as racial groups, religious groups, socioeconomic class, and geographic location, being part of particular groups tends to have a strong bearing on partisan identity. Once party identification is established it tends to crystallize, becoming part of a person's self-conception and social identity, and remains intact over time. As partisans, people become indoctrinated with their chosen party's issue positions and ideology.

Political scientist Matthew Levendusky has studied the process of political indoctrination, which he calls sorting, and wrote The Partisan Sort to describe it. According to Levendusky, "Most voters simply do not think about politics and political issues enough to possess the well-developed abstract belief systems characteristic of [political] elites (politicians and members of the news media)... Ordinary voters cannot form coherent views on a long list of issues, but they can look to elites for guidance on what positions they should take." In trying to make sense of political issues of the day, people "look to elites for guidance on what positions they should take, and adopt those positions." In a sense, they ask themselves "what do people like me (members of my party) think about this issue?" This causes people's attitudes on issues to move into alignment with their partisan affiliation. Republicans become anti-tax, pro-gun rights, and for a strong national defense,Directory ofchina glass mosaic Tile Manufacturers, while Democrats become sympathetic to the plight of immigrants,We mainly supply professional craftspeople with wholesale agate beads from china, pro-gay rights, and pro-life.

Identification with a political party also causes people to raise a perceptual screen that colors their perception of politicians and public affairs. People's evaluations of political figures become biased as politicians of their own party tend to be judged favorably, while politicians of the opposing party are judged unfavorably. Party supporters tend to accept information that is agreeable with their partisan beliefs and resist information that challenges their beliefs. This effect is compounded when they gravitate to news sources that support their partisan point of view, which they tend to do.

沒有留言:

張貼留言