Individual Rights and the Obligations of Government

Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 8, 9, and 10 in American Government and review the Week 4 Instructor Guidance. Be sure to read about the different party platforms, including the

Democratic Party (Links to an external site.)

Republican Party (Links to an external site.)

, and one third party (e.g.,

Libertarian Party (Links to an external site.)

Green Party (Links to an external site.)

Constitution Party (Links to an external site.)

, etc.).

Reflect: Our political system is characterized by certain fundamental features to include a system of laws, rights, and liberties. The laws, created and supported by the Constitutional framework, are designed to protect and secure the rights and liberties of individuals and groups throughout the United States. However, the government also must provide for the security of its citizens from serious internal and external threats that could cause severe damage to our country. Think about how the need for homeland and national security can create a dilemma where conflicts emerge between these security needs and the demands for civil rights and liberties.

Write: In your initial post,

· Explain what obligations the U.S. government has towards its citizens and how these obligations impact individual and group rights.

· Provide real-world examples to support your explanation, including one personal example from your own experiences.

· Using your personal example, explain the position of the two major parties and a third party, regarding the example you presented.

Your initial post must be at least 300 words. If you are citing statistics our outside resources, please list the website or the reference entry.

8 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Associated Press

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Define the concept of civil liberties and explain how civil liberties differ from civil rights.
• Outline basic civil liberties in the United States.
• Examine freedom of expression as a basic civil liberty.
• Explore the right to privacy as a basic civil liberty.
• Analyze how the Bill of Rights has been used to protect the rights of the accused.
• Trace the evolution of the American Civil Rights Movement from one of removing barriers to

participation in areas such as voting and education to one of guaranteeing group-based equality.
• Examine the meaning of equal rights and equal treatment.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 189 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Following the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon on September 11,
2001, President George W. Bush launched a “War on Terrorism.” This undeclared war, a police
action authorized by Congress, took the U.S. military to Afghanistan and later Iraq. It also
resulted in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and, even more importantly,
the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. (USA PATRIOT stands for Uniting and Strengthen-
ing America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) As
a wartime measure, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed federal authorities to arrest and hold sus-
pected terrorists without filing formal charges. Individuals detained on suspicion of terrorism
were not entitled to an attorney, nor, if an attorney inquired at the request of a family member,
was the family member entitled to know why the suspect was being held. It also became fed-
eral policy that suspected terrorists who were charged would be tried in military, rather than
civilian, courts. Immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, including those who had obtained
U.S. citizenship, found themselves under greater scrutiny and at risk of detention and even
deportation without being afforded the rights traditionally enjoyed by Americans.

One of the fundamental character-
istics of the American political sys-
tem is that the government is one of
laws, and citizens have rights. At a
minimum, citizens have the right, if
accused of a crime, to due process:
to know what the charges against
them are and to face their accuser.
Those charged are entitled to a trial
where guilt has to be proven on the
basis of evidence. The USA PATRIOT
Act appeared to turn these funda-
mental rights on their head. For
example, the USA PATRIOT Act, as
written, provides that police do
not need to show probable cause,
guaranteed by the Fourth Amend-
ment, to obtain information from
telephone companies about num-
bers dialed to and from a specific
telephone. All that the police need
to do is assert that the information
is necessary for ongoing criminal investigations. Critics were quick to point out that not only
was this a violation of basic civil liberties, but it made a mockery of the Bill of Rights. If the
Constitution is stripped of its substance in the name of national security, then what exactly
are Americans defending while waging a war? Proponents of the act suggest that civil liber-
ties are never absolute but are balanced against the public interest, which in this case is a
matter of national self-defense. If the nation falls apart, then the Constitution is rendered a
meaningless document.

In this chapter, we explore the meaning of civil liberties and compare them to civil rights. We
also trace the ways the Supreme Court has expanded these liberties and rights for Americans
over the course of the nation’s history.

Associated Press/Ron Edmonds

President George W. Bush and members of Congress at
the signing of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT
Act is intended to help the government employ terror-
ism-fighting tools that some say infringe on individual
civil liberties.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 190 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.1 The Meaning of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The concept of civil liberties is sometimes confused with that of civil rights. The term civil
liberties refers to the personal freedoms and the rights of those accused of crimes that are
enjoyed by citizens and non-citizens alike, while the term civil rights focuses on the rights of
citizens to be protected from discrimination in both the public and the private sectors. Civil
liberties are often referred to as negative rights, as they focus on what government cannot do,
while civil rights are often referred to as positive rights because they focus on what govern-
ment must do.

Civil liberties include those rights listed in the Bill of Rights that include freedom of speech,
freedom of religious exercise, and the freedom to peaceably assemble. They also generally
include the unstated right to privacy. These rights cannot be abridged by the federal govern-
ment. Civil liberties also include the rights of the accused, such as due process, protection
from cruel and unusual punishment, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
and the protection from being forced to testify against oneself.

By contrast, civil rights pertain to the right to be free from discrimination due to membership
in a group, such as discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or something
else. Voting rights and equal access to public education are civil rights that have been fought
for by different groups over the years. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Due
Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause provide the constitutional basis
for civil rights. These will be discussed in this chapter.

The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantees some basic civil liberties, such as freedom of
speech, freedom of religious exercise, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and
jury trials. In providing for the election of representatives to Congress, the Constitution even
hints at the right to vote. But in the nation’s early years, state governments were much more
of a daily presence in Americans’ lives than the federal government was. The Bill of Rights,
as you may recall from Chapter 2, was intended to protect liberties that the Anti-Federalists
were concerned states would lose if the U.S. Constitution were ratified without it. The Bill of
Rights was designed to protect state sovereignty against encroaching national authority. It
was not until 1868, following the Civil War, that the 14th Amendment was ratified as a vehicle
for applying the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states.

To summarize, then, civil liberties involve protections against government actions that would
interfere with individual freedoms, while civil rights are legal actions that government takes
in order to provide equal conditions for individuals and groups. Further, civil liberties differ
from civil rights in that civil liberties protect individuals while civil rights protect groups.
When we speak of civil liberties, we are often talking about individuals’ rights to freely prac-
tice religion or to have fair trials with legal representation. When we talk about civil rights, we
are often talking about the rights of a group, such as the right of African Americans to vote or
not to be discriminated against in workplaces, education, and accommodations. Arguably, the
civil rights of a group begin with the civil liberties of an individual, in that if a group is being
discriminated against, members of that group may be denied civil liberties.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 191 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.1 The Meaning of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Obligations of Government to Protect Citizens

Civil liberties need to be protected because they are essential to the workings of democratic
governance. For example, if an individual’s right to free speech, which includes the right to
criticize government, is not protected, then government is not held accountable by the peo-
ple. Democracy requires government accountability to the people.

Civil rights are often defined as government protections of the rights of citizenship. Issues of
discrimination, however, are complicated. While government may not show preference for
one group over another, private individuals and groups are not restricted in the same way
unless they are receiving public monies or running establishments that serve the public, such
as hotels or restaurants. A private college that does not want to allow female students to enroll
in its football military leadership programs can control its own enrollment policy and refuse
female students this right. However, the government then has the right to deny the school
access to federal monies, including for research, student financial aid, and loan guarantees.

Unlike private institutions, public institutions must provide equal protections to citizens. A
governmental obligation to protect a citizen’s right to vote, for example, means that a citizen
cannot be prevented from voting by either private individuals or public officials, and that each
person’s vote must be counted equally. The United States follows the principle of “one person,
one vote.” If the right to vote is defined as a basic civil right, and then one state attempts to
erect barriers to voting, as many Southern states did against African Americans prior to the
1965 Voting Rights Act, government then has an obligation to remove those barriers. More-
over, if the government fails to do so, it is not treating its citizens equally. Voting rights is
a difficult example because some politicians and private citizens argue that voting barriers
protect elections from fraud, such as ineligible people voting, while others consider these bar-
riers to be a type of civil rights violation. Contemporary debates over photo identification or
state and local government requiring multiple forms of identification as a condition of voting
are considered within their civil rights context.

The 14th Amendment’s Definition of Citizenship
and Equal Protection

The roots of civil liberties in the U.S. Constitution lie in the language of the Bill of Rights, but,
as previously mentioned, they applied only to the national government. After all, the first
word of the First Amendment is “Congress,” the federal legislature, suggesting that the Bill of
Rights protects the people from the federal government. The vehicle for applying the rights
included in the Bill of Rights to the states lies in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has
used that amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights and extend to the states what were
originally limitations on the federal government.

The 14th Amendment was ratified as part of Reconstruction after the Civil War; at its core lies
the definition of citizenship. Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.” The definition of citizenship was a direct response to the Dred Scott rul-
ing, where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves and their descendants could not be con-
sidered citizens. With the definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, a person born in
the state of Alabama was to be considered a citizen of the United States, as was one born in

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 192 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.1 The Meaning of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

the state of Massachusetts. The 14th Amendment made citizenship a national right as well as
a state right. The amendment goes on to say,

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any per-
son of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are two components to this statement. The first is referred to as the Due Process Clause,
and the second is the Equal Protection Clause. The Due Process Clause requires that citizens
be treated fairly in judicial processes, while the Equal Protection Clause means that states
may not enact statutes that deny rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens.

The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses were used to decide a landmark same-sex mar-
riage case in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), that the
14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses mean that states may not refuse
to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. The Court decided that
marriage cannot be denied to adults by any state simply because the two persons getting
married are of the same sex.

The Equal Protection Clause actu-
ally reinforces the Due Process
Clause. It requires that individuals
be treated equally. The language
typically used in how the U.S. Con-
stitution approaches the law is that
government may not create dis-
criminatory and unfair groups of
people. If, for example, Congress
creates a public assistance program
for poor people whose qualifica-
tions for assistance are based on
need, Congress cannot deny assis-
tance to Hispanic women who are
otherwise eligible. That would, in
effect, put Hispanic women into a
category of being “other” or differ-
ent from all the other women quali-
fying for assistance, which would be discriminatory and unfair. Once government does this, it
is not treating people equally.

The status of gay rights under these two clauses is one line of reasoning that was used to
argue for the civil right of same-sex marriage. By reading the Equal Protection Clause along-
side the Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a right,
which means that the state of South Carolina cannot refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a
marriage conducted in New York because doing so denies the couple who moves from New
York to South Carolina equal protection under the law. As marriage is considered to be a
basic right, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, denying homosexuals the right to marry
one another was deemed discriminatory and unfair.

Associated Press/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex mar-
riage as a civil right makes it fall under the protection
of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment;
if marriage is guaranteed to all individuals, then it can-
not be denied to one group of people.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 193 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.2 Freedom of Expression as a Basic Civil Liberty

Combining the Due Process Clause with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment makes
a very powerful statement about individual liberties and, by extension, civil rights. These two
clauses together mean that one born anywhere in the United States is considered a citizen
and cannot lose that citizenship when traveling to a part of the country that chooses not to
recognize it. This is critically important because the 14th Amendment follows the 13th Amend-
ment, which abolished slavery. Together, these two amendments guaranteed that a former
slave who was given freedom through the 13th Amendment would be a citizen of the United
States.

The 14th Amendment also precedes the 15th Amendment, which states, “The right of citizens
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This means that a citizen of the
United States cannot be denied the right to vote by any state on the basis of race, because
doing so denies that person the equal protection of the law.

8.2 Freedom of Expression as a Basic Civil Liberty

Some Americans may take for granted the right to free speech, the right to exercise freedom of
religion, and basic rights to due process. These are the core of Americans’ basic civil liberties.
In addition, Americans often assume they have a basic right to privacy even though privacy
rights are not specified in the Bill of Rights. All of Americans’ core civil liberties are stated or
implicit in the Bill of Rights, and all are essential if the concept of human agency is to have any
real meaning. But as was the case with the Supreme Court having to carve out a role for itself
(as we discussed in Chapter 7), so too has the Court needed to define the nature of citizens’
civil liberties.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

Many would agree that the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental civil liberty. The First
Amendment makes it clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom
of speech. The First Amendment, as written, applies to only the federal government. The lan-
guage of the 10th Amendment, which includes the powers reserved to the states, gives states
the power to limit speech. But the 14th Amendment provides the vehicle to apply that limita-
tion to the states on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause.

As important a right as freedom of speech is, it is by no means absolute. There are circum-
stances when limitations can be placed on speech, especially when it may cause harm to oth-
ers. In his famous 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argued that the state could interfere

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 194 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.2 Freedom of Expression as a Basic Civil Liberty

with individual liberty if a person’s action in any way harmed him- or herself or others. Mill
spent much of this work talking about the appropriateness of restricting speech. However,
Mill also took the position that speech that hurts people’s feelings or that some find offensive
is not really harmful and should therefore be allowed. In fact, he argued that offensive speech
is part of the free marketplace of ideas that sustains democratic government. If people are
allowed to say things that are offensive, the truth will emerge.

Free speech is also critical to the concept of individuality. It supports the core American val-
ues of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because the life that a person chooses to live
is a form of free speech. If one is free to think about things as an expression of his or her indi-
viduality, it is only logical that he or she would be entitled to free speech as an extension of
human agency.

However, freedom of speech must be tempered for the sake of the public interest. The notion
that free speech can cause harm by causing dangerous actions only complicates the issue of
free speech. By Mill’s standard, for instance, members of the Ku Klux Klan marching in a heav-
ily African American neighborhood and promoting hate speech might be considered simply
offensive. But if the march leads to physical violence, then the speech extends beyond offen-
sive to harmful.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment declares the free exercise of religion as a basic right. The Framers
believed that religion was a matter of individual conscience and therefore an extension
of human agency, which should be respected by government. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson
described this concept as a separation of church and state. The First Amendment was meant
as much to protect states that had established churches as to protect those that did not.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment declares that Congress shall not estab-
lish an official religion. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment guarantees that
individuals are free to practice their religion without government interference. Of the several
rights and protections found in the First Amendment, the two concerning religion appear
first, which suggests that religious freedom was important to supporters of the Bill of Rights.
But what if one wants to have prayer in school? Does that violate the Establishment Clause
because the school, if it is public, is an extension of the state? If the school does not allow
prayer, is the school violating the right to free exercise? Partly because of these knotty ques-
tions, the issue of school prayer has proven to be very contentious. Civil libertarians often
invoke the separation of church and state as the basis for opposing prayer in school, while
proponents of school prayer often accuse civil libertarians of being against religion.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
In Engel v. Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court established that school prayer violates the First
Amendment. The case involved a non-denominational prayer written by the New York Board
of Regents to be recited in the public schools. Parents brought suit against the board of educa-
tion. The New York courts upheld the “Regents’ Prayer” so long as students were not forced to
participate over their parents’ or their own objections.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 195 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.2 Freedom of Expression as a Basic Civil Liberty

The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black made it clear that the
fact that the prayer was nondenominational was really beside the point:

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact
that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it
from the limitations of the Establishment Clause. . . . When the power, pres-
tige, and financial support of government are placed behind particular reli-
gious beliefs, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to con-
form to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.

Even a nondenominational prayer
becomes corrupted when joined
to the state. That students were
free to exempt themselves from
participation does not mean that
they would not be vulnerable to
social ostracism, which in itself is
discriminatory.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Lemon v. Kurtzman considered
whether the state could support
religion by providing subsidies to
church-related schools. Various
states passed legislation provid-
ing financial assistance to church-
related K–12 schools that went
beyond providing transportation
or textbooks. Statutes enacted in

Pennsylvania and Rhode Island allowed parochial schools to be reimbursed for providing sec-
ular teaching services for courses found in a public school curriculum. Like the Rhode Island
statute, the 1968 Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act allowed
reimbursement for math, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education
courses while prohibiting reimbursement for “any subject matter expressing religious teach-
ing, or morals or forms of worship of any sect.” Alton Lemon, a public school parent, brought
suit against Pennsylvania Superintendent of Public Instruction David Kurtzman for violating
the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. A three-judge federal court held that the law
violated neither clause.

Again, the Supreme Court disagreed, developing what has been referred to as the Lemon test.
Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that, under this test, a statute would have to meet three
criteria to demonstrate that it does not violate either First Amendment religion clause. The
statute must

a) have a secular legislative purpose,
b) neither advance nor inhibit religion,
c) not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Associated Press/Ginger Perry

Students participate in See You at the Pole, a global day
of student prayer. Since the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale,
mandatory recitation of prayer in school has been con-
sidered a violation of the First Amendment’s Establish-
ment Clause.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 196 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.3 The Right to Privacy as a Basic Civil Liberty

Subsidies of this nature, the Court concluded, violated the Establishment Clause if they had
the effect of lowering the cost of sending children to parochial schools.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Many thought that the Lemon test was too stringent and discriminated against those who
wanted to send their children to religious schools. But what about a public voucher program
that allows parents to choose their children’s school? In recent years, reform efforts have
allowed parents to receive vouchers from the local public school district if they want to send
their children to a private school to offset the cost of tuition. Do vouchers amount to a subsidy
for private education? Parents who send their children to private school often complain about
paying property taxes for public schools their children do not use. Some argue that vouchers
make the education market competitive by forcing public schools to offer a higher-quality
education, while others claim that vouchers subsidize religious education because many of
the private schools that parents opt for are parochial.

Ohio created a voucher program in the late 1990s that offered a $2,250 tuition grant for each
student from a low-income family enrolled in a private school, whether religious or non-
religious. Doris Simmons-Harris and others sued Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction
Susan Tave Zelman on the grounds that the voucher program violated the Establishment
Clause.

The Supreme Court took the view that the voucher program offered real choice and as such
was constitutional. Unlike the Lemon case, this voucher program did not create an excessive
entanglement between government and religion because its only intent was to offer parents
the choice of a private school alternative to public education.

8.3 The Right to Privacy as a Basic Civil Liberty

The right to privacy is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Rather, it is inferred
on the basis of both the Fourth and Ninth amendments. The Fourth Amendment safeguards
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Individuals may not have their private houses,
personal effects, papers, or other property searched or seized without probable cause, as
expressed in a warrant. To the extent that there is a guarantee against such intrusion, there is
an assumption of privacy. The Ninth Amendment reserves to the people those rights that had
not been enumerated, or listed, in the Constitution. The issue of privacy has been a conten-
tious one, especially with regard to abortion.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court found that a woman’s right to terminate a preg-
nancy was constitutional under her right to privacy. The Court’s ruling invalidated a Texas
statute criminalizing abortion for both the woman seeking an abortion and the doctor per-
forming the procedure.

The Supreme Court could not point to a specific provision in the Constitution that actually
granted a right to privacy that extended to abortion rights, so the Court staked its claims on
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where it held that married couples had a right to privacy to

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 197 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.4 The Rights of the Accused

practice birth control. The Court also asserted that the Constitution contained a penumbra—
a spirit—of privacy.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that women could terminate pregnancies under certain condi-
tions. It left open the possibility for the state to regulate abortions if there were a compelling
interest to do so. During the first trimester, a woman was presumed to have unlimited rights
to terminate. But as the fetus attained viability, that is, the likelihood of survival outside the
womb, there might be a compelling state interest to regulate and limit her choice to termi-
nate. A state might place limitations on abortions during the second trimester and even ban
them during the third unless the mother’s life was at stake. One problem with this standard
was that technological advances would allow fetal viability to be achieved earlier, thereby
making stricter regulations more likely.

Roe v. Wade touched on religious
freedom issues even though reli-
gious practice was not central to
the abortion issue. Critics claimed
the decision was contrary to reli-
gious beliefs holding that abortion
is the murder of the unborn. The
decision also touched on the issue
of federalism. Prior to Roe v. Wade,
abortion was an issue for states
to decide. In making its ruling, the
Court nationalized the issue and
created a uniform standard by lim-
iting whether, when, and how states
regulated abortion. Roe v. Wade
touched off a divisive culture war in
the United States. Not only does the
case ask when life begins, but for
socially liberal individuals, the case
raises issues about human agency,
particularly within the context of the Declaration’s promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”

8.4 The Rights of the Accused

Americans expect that if and when they are accused of crimes, certain due process rights will
be protected. First, they will know what they are charged with and they will be informed of
their rights. Second, their homes will not be illegally searched. And third, they will receive
state-provided legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves. All three of these are
essential ingredients for a fair trial. The premise is simple: If proper procedure is followed,
then the outcome will be correct and just. If the state could search one’s home without a war-
rant, what safeguard would there be to ensure that evidence was not planted by police? If, in
prosecuting a case, the state can have people arguing in court who are knowledgeable about
the law, then as a matter of fairness the accused should also have somebody knowledgeable

Associated Press/Manuel Balce Ceneta

The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade
remains one of the most controversial—and adversar-
ial—decisions made by the Court.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 198 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.4 The Rights of the Accused

about the law representing him or her. If one could be questioned without an attorney pres-
ent, it would be hard to verify that a confession was not coerced.

Unlawful Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It then
says that warrants to search a home or one’s papers or even to arrest somebody will not be
issued unless there is probable cause, but the warrant must clearly state where the search
will take place, and who or what specifically may be seized. This means that if someone is
hiding a gun that is believed to have been used in a murder in his or her home, it cannot be
seized unless there is a warrant to search that person’s house. The suspicion that this person
might have committed the crime would serve as probable cause to obtain the warrant. As part
of due process, the police must explain to a judge why they need a warrant. This requirement
creates a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of authority. If it were not required, what
would prevent the police from knocking on doors conducting fishing expeditions for anything
illegal?

Does this Fourth Amendment protection also prevent evidence that was illegally obtained
from being used against a defendant? This was the question addressed by the Supreme Court
in Mapp v. Ohio, decided in 1961. Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene mate-
rials, but the police obtained the evidence illegally. Cleveland police forced their way into
Mapp’s home searching for a bombing suspect without a search warrant. During their search,
the police found obscene materials. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld Mapp’s conviction even
though it acknowledged that the evidence was illegally obtained because the obscene materi-
als were found while the police were looking for a bombing suspect and the materials were
not in plain view. The Supreme Court overturned that decision.

This case incorporated the exclusionary rule, which stipulates that evidence obtained ille-
gally cannot be used against the accused even if it would prove them guilty. Earlier precedents
had already made illegally obtained evidence in federal trials exclusionary. The Mapp ruling
made it clear that Fourth Amendment rights extend to the states through the 14th Amendment
when it stated, “The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the
entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest” (Mapp v.
Ohio, 1961).

The Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment establishes that one has the right to legal counsel in federal criminal
trials. Yet the right to counsel may be understood as the right to be represented by an attor-
ney in court only but does not extend to the government providing an attorney. As late as the
1940s, the Supreme Court held that the right to the government providing legal representa-
tion did not apply to the states.

In 1942, the Supreme Court held as constitutional, in Betts v. Brady, that the government did
not have to provide indigent persons accused of state crimes with an attorney unless the
accused person met special circumstances. A Maryland court denied Smith Betts’s request

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 199 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.4 The Rights of the Accused

for counsel upon being indicted for robbery. Forced to represent himself, he was convicted.
He filed petitions for habeas corpus, claiming that he was denied his right to counsel, and the
local and state courts rejected his case, after which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear it.

The Court upheld Betts’s conviction and denied that the right to counsel obligated states to
provide poor people with attorneys. Four years earlier, in Johnson v. Zerbst, the Court held that
poor defendants were guaranteed counsel in federal trials, and in Powell v. Alabama in 1932,
the Court held that states had to provide attorneys to poor defendants in capital cases, where
the death penalty was a possible conviction. Powell v. Alabama involved the “Scottsboro Boys”
case, where Ozzie Powell and several Black youths were charged with raping two White girls
in Alabama. They were found guilty and sentenced to death. The issues before the Supreme
Court included the absence of a fair, impartial, and deliberate trial; the denial of counsel at
trial; and the exclusion of Blacks from the jury. The Court majority asserted that even an intel-
ligent person would be at a disadvantage without counsel:

Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without proper charge,
and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue
or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately
to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the
guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without
it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does
not know how to establish his innocence. (Powell v. Alabama, 1932)

In Betts, however, the Supreme Court said that the right to
counsel did not extend to all cases, because it did not follow
that just because one was poor he or she was more likely to
be convicted. The issue was not poverty; it was ignorance
of the law that put one at a disadvantage at trial. In his dis-
sent, Justice Hugo Black made it clear that the denial of
counsel to poor people did indeed increase the likelihood
of conviction, which in his view represented a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause.

The Betts case was overturned in Gideon v. Wainwright
(1963). Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted in Florida for
petty theft and sentenced to 5 years in a Florida prison.
He was forced to defend himself because the Florida
court maintained that it could appoint counsel only in
capital cases. Gideon read some law books in the prison
library and handwrote a petition to the U.S. Supreme
Court seeking to overturn his conviction. In its ruling, the
Supreme Court maintained, in a 9–0 decision, that a per-
son accused of a felony could not be guaranteed a fair
trial without the assistance of legal counsel. The effect
of being forced to defend himself was to not only violate

Associated Press

Clarence Earl Gideon’s 1961
appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court led the Court to rule that
persons charged in criminal
cases must be represented by
counsel in all states.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 200 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.4 The Rights of the Accused

equal protection but to strip the poor person of his basic rights to due process, as he would
not know how or have the resources to adequately respond to his accuser.

The Accused Must Know Their Rights

We are all familiar with the famous line on any number of police shows, such as Law & Order,
that, when arrested, individuals have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney
and that, if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them. These are the
Miranda Rights, and they come from the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. Ernesto Miranda
confessed to a crime during police interrogation without requesting the assistance of counsel.
Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote,

It is obvious that . . . an interrogation environment is created for no purpose
other than to subjugate the individual to the will of the examiner. . . . The
current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our
Nation’s most cherished principles—that the individual may not be compelled
to incriminate himself. Unless adequate protective devices are employed . . . no
statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of free choice.

Put differently, without minimal safeguards, there is no way to know that the confession was
not coerced. Unless proper procedures are followed, the outcome cannot be said to be fair
and just. In sum, the Miranda and Mapp cases have long been viewed by law and order con-
servatives as examples of judicial activism whereby the rights of criminal defendants were
protected at the expense of the public interest.

Summary of Civil Liberties

What the various civil liberties cases have in common is that individual liberties are to be
respected, but they are by no means absolute. In matters of privacy, as well as matters of
religion and speech, there is to be a presumption favoring individual rights unless there is a
compelling societal interest to restrict those rights. To establish the interest as compelling,
government would need to demonstrate that regulation is needed to prevent incitement and
irreparable harm to society.

However, when it comes to the rights of the accused, the bar would appear to be even higher.
Here the Court indicates that because the state can deprive persons of their life and liberty,
it must be absolutely clear that proper procedures have been followed so that the outcome is
just. Thus, one cannot be compelled to make confessions, nor can due process or legal counsel
be denied even as the nation is fighting a war on terrorism. In short, basic civil liberties must
be protected to ensure not only that Americans may enjoy freedom, but also that the govern-
ment remains accountable to the public. See Timeline: Evolution of civil liberties for a brief
summary of civil liberties in the United States.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 201 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.4 The Rights of the Accused

Timeline: Evolution of civil liberties

Photo credits (top to bottom): Photos.com/Thinkstock, SuperStock, Roel Smart/iStock/Thinkstock, Alexandr Shirokov/Thinkstock,
Associated Press/Susan Walsh

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 202 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.5 The Quest for Civil Rights

Civil rights differ from civil liberties in that civil rights speak to the desire of groups to be
treated the same as other groups, while civil liberties address individual legal and procedural
protections. Core civil rights concerns address discrimination based on race, inequality of
education, and obstacles to voting. Political and economic inequalities have resulted from
these civil rights violations.

The Right to Vote

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee voting rights. States could decide who was eligible
to vote and whether other requirements needed to be met, such as property qualifications or
registration.

Initially, states limited voting rights to individuals who were adult White males who owned
property. In the 1820s, the states extended the right to vote to all adult White males, regard-
less of whether they owned property. Many Western states allowed women to vote in the 19th
century, but women were not guaranteed that right nationally until the 19th Amendment was
ratified in 1920. In 1971, the 26th Amendment extended the right to vote to 18-year-olds in
the wake of anti-Vietnam protests.

Despite these constitutional protec-
tions, for many Americans the fight
for voting rights continued. In par-
ticular, while the 15th Amendment,
ratified in 1870, prohibited states
from denying the right to vote on
the basis of race, many Southern
states still found ways to deny vot-
ing rights to African Americans. In
the Jim Crow South, where barri-
ers were constructed to prevent
African Americans from voting, a
“grandfather clause” meant that
one had to pass a literacy test and
a “good citizenship” test or fulfill
an “understanding requirement”
if one’s grandfather had not been
able to vote, which, if he had been
a slave, he would not have. Those
who could not read were effectively
disfranchised from the system.
Recently freed slaves who had not received an education were thus barred. Other barriers
to voting included poll taxes, which kept poor people, both Black and White, away from the
polls. In other areas, Black voters would be discouraged by racial violence and intimidation,
including lynching.

Everett Collection/SuperStock

Women’s suffrage supporters rally in Chicago in 1916.
The right to vote was not guaranteed to all adult per-
sons until well into the 20th century. Women, for exam-
ple, did not win universal voting rights until the 19th
Amendment was ratified in 1920.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 203 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section

8.6 The Meaning of Equal Rights and Equal Treatment

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement, which culminated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, was a grassroots protest that sought to end racial discrimination in public
accommodations, education, voting, and employment. Among the practices that were most
protested during this era were the inability to vote, the forced separation of Blacks in schools
and public transportation, and public and private discrimination in services including hotels,
restaurants, and drinking fountains.

8.6 The Meaning of Equal Rights and Equal Treatment

Most Americans take it as a given that equal treatment is a basic civil right. If, for example,
John is given greater protections and liberties by the state than Susan is, Susan can rightfully
claim that she is not receiving equal treatment. If Susan is not being treated equally because
of her gender, she can claim discrimination. Such cases of discrimination may appear to be
simple enough, but in practice they often become quite complicated. Suppose, for example,
that both John and Susan apply for a job and only one can be hired. By definition, the one who
is not hired has been discriminated against. The employer made a choice and stated a prefer-
ence. Can we still say that both John and Susan received equal treatment?

The concept of equal protection
has meant different things at dif-
ferent times. From about 1890 until
the 1950s, the reigning approach
to race-based treatment was sep-
arate but equal. For example,
a school system did not have to
educate White and Black students
in the same classrooms, as there
could be separate schools for Black
and White students as long as the
schools claimed that they were
“equal.” It was these types of seg-
regated facilities, including sepa-
rate water fountains and movie
entrances for Blacks and Whites in
the South, that would come to sym-
bolize the Civil Rights Era of the
1950s and 1960s. Today, it is often taken for granted that to be afforded equal treatment
means that facilities will be racially integrated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
For most of the period between the Civil War and the cultural revolution that began in
the 1960s, Blacks and Whites were held to the separate but equal doctrine in the United
States. The doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court beginning in the 1896 case of Plessy

Everett Collection/SuperStock

The infamous segregated water fountains of the 1950s
were indicative of the era’s “separate but equal” doctrine,
established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1890s.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 204 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.6 The Meaning of Equal Rights and Equal Treatment

v. Ferguson, which revolved around a Louisiana statute requiring separate railway cars for
Whites and Blacks. Homer A. Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, was arrested for sitting in a
railway car reserved for Whites. Plessy appeared White; however, he sat in the White-only car
and informed the train conductor that he was Black in order to get arrested so that he could
sue on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Convicted in a Louisiana court, he appealed the order
of the judge, John Ferguson.

The Supreme Court did not consider the statute to violate the 13th Amendment, which abol-
ished involuntary servitude, nor the 14th Amendment, which established citizenship and
equal protection. At issue for the Court was whether the Louisiana statute was reasonable.
As the Court stated:

In determining the question of reasonableness it is at liberty to act with refer-
ence to the established usages, customs and traditions of the people, and with
a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the pub-
lic peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law
which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public
conveyances is unreasonable.

The Court also made it clear that social equality would have to occur naturally; the U.S. Con-
stitution could not order it. In other words, individuals could not be forced to abandon their
prejudices because of a clause in the 14th Amendment, nor could that clause force people to
accept others as their social equals.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The Supreme Court reversed one aspect of Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education,
the 1954 school desegregation decision where the Court concluded that separate was not
equal in public schools. Linda Brown was prohibited from attending a White public school in
Topeka, Kansas, near her home. Seven students’ parents, including Linda Brown’s, sued on the
grounds that separate schools violated their right to equal protection. Their case was helped
by events in the larger world. Coming on the heels of World War II, where the consequences of
hatred and bigotry in Nazi Germany were clear, coupled with the fact that Black soldiers had
fought valiantly for the country, the Court was inclined to reconsider its earlier precedent.

Another factor influencing the Court’s willingness to reconsider precedent, which perhaps
was a factor in the larger Civil Rights Movement, was the United States’ image during the
Cold War. The Eisenhower Justice Department filed a brief in the Brown case in part because
the inequality among the races was a detriment in the eyes of the Soviet Union and the Third
World.

Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren made it clear that education was
the very foundation of citizenship:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures
for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of educa-
tion to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 205 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.6 The Meaning of Equal Rights and Equal Treatment

basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very
foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awaken-
ing the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional train-
ing, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it
is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is
denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity where the state
has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on
equal terms.

Based on the testimony of psychologists and various
social scientists, the Court concluded that segregation
had a detrimental effect on students. Separate school
facilities were not equal.

Brown v. Board of Education proved to be extremely
controversial. Critics accused the Court of judicial
activism. They argued that segregated school systems
reflected the democratic will of the majority in the
communities where they were located. Who was the
Supreme Court to defy democracy? There were even
calls to strip the Supreme Court of its authority. Even
President Eisenhower, who had appointed Chief Jus-
tice Warren, wondered if he had made a mistake.

Evolving Civil Rights

Over the years, several cases arguing for equal rights
and equal treatment would come before the Supreme
Court, and civil rights in the United States evolved from
an initial quest to remove barriers to access and par-
ticipation to policies aimed at achieving equal oppor-
tunity. (See Timeline: Evolution of civil rights for a
brief summary of civil rights in the United States.) The
educational cases dealing with segregation in schools
were about obtaining equality in educational opportu-
nity because unequal education would result in group disadvantage, thereby exacerbating eco-
nomic inequality, which in turn would affect various groups’ ability to participate in the politi-
cal process on an equal basis. As these barriers were removed, national policy turned to the
attainment of equality through programs including affirmative action, which were designed to
advance groups that were historically discriminated against so that they could be on an even
plane with others. As much as the Supreme Court was willing to allow these programs in prin-
ciple on the grounds that they furthered a social interest, it was not willing to allow them to be
designed in such a way that the effect would be to discriminate against Whites.

Associated Press

George E. C. Hayes (left), future
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall (center), and James M.
Nabrit (right) join hands outside
the Supreme Court after it ruled in
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
that racial segregation in public
schools was unconstitutional.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 206 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Section 8.6 The Meaning of Equal Rights and Equal Treatment

Timeline: Evolution of civil rights

Photo credits (top to bottom): Lillia/iStock/Thinkstock, Associated Press, Moodboard/Thinkstock, Steve Hix/Fuse/Thinkstock, Associated
Press

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 207 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
One distinctive feature of American life is that citizens take their basic civil liberties very seri-
ously. They often take for granted that they have the right to vote, to express themselves freely, to
practice their faith unhindered by government interference, and to do as they please in private.
Arguably, that was why the Anti-Federalists insisted on a separate Bill of Rights. It was not until
1868, following the Civil War, that the 14th Amendment was ratified as a vehicle for applying the
protections in the Bill of Rights to the states. The most important clause in the 14th Amendment
is the Equal Protection Clause, which, when joined with the definition of citizenship, means that
individuals cannot be treated unequally. Government, whether state or federal, must afford citi-
zens equal treatment. To provide less is to effectively engage in discrimination.

Both civil liberties and civil rights in the United States have expanded dramatically since the
days of the nation’s founding, which has reflected an evolving notion of the concept of natural
rights. Among the key expansions is the right to vote. Also, because a core American value is
equal opportunity, the quest for civil rights in the United States has entailed removing barri-
ers to access. To this end, with regard to civil rights, education—which greatly affects one’s
access and ability to succeed in life—must be provided on an equal basis. The earlier doctrine
of separate but equal no longer has a place in American society.

Finally, over the years the Supreme Court has defined the concept of privacy, especially in
defining a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. Still, as much as American civil liber-
ties have expanded, they have never been absolute. There has always been a basis for inter-
fering with them if the state has a compelling interest to do so. The Supreme Court has often
echoed John Stuart Mill’s harm principle—that although there is to be a presumption in favor
of individual liberty, the state may restrict that liberty to prevent harm to one’s self or others.
As we have seen, government can regulate free speech when it creates a “clear and present
danger,” but it must be done according to exacting standards. Further, the state may restrict
a woman’s right to choose when there is a compelling state interest, which is usually defined
at the point of fetal viability. Key to these discussions is that civil rights and liberties must be
balanced against the larger public interest.

Key Ideas to Remember

• The concepts of civil liberties and civil rights have evolved over American history.
• Civil liberties often refer to the rights of individuals to express themselves, to prac-

tice their faith freely, and, when accused of crimes, to have access to basic protec-
tions, such as due process and counsel. The right to privacy, while not explicitly
stated in the Constitution, is also considered a basic liberty.

• Civil rights often refer to the rights of groups to be treated on an equal basis with
other groups, which requires removing barriers to equal access, education, and par-
ticipation in political affairs resulting in discrimination.

• The Civil Rights Movement was a quest for equality and represented the efforts of
disadvantaged minorities to assert themselves.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 208 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Summary and Resources

• Free speech is not considered an absolute right, but the Court’s position has evolved
to one whereby, unless one’s speech is so dangerous as to create harm to society,
there must be a presumption favoring individual freedoms.

• On matters of privacy, especially with regard to rights to have an abortion, the
Supreme Court has upheld the core principle of a woman’s right to choose despite its
recognition of states’ rights to pass laws restricting abortions.

• Initially, the Civil Rights Movement focused on removing barriers to equal educa-
tion and voting, but over time it manifested itself in efforts to achieve group results
through policies of affirmative action. Despite the Court’s position that racial quotas
and point systems violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the
Court has nonetheless affirmed the principle that government may have a compel-
ling interest in pursuing affirmative action.

Questions to Consider

1. What is the obligation of government to protect its citizens?
2. What does it mean to provide equal protection under the law?
3. How does the 14th Amendment work to nationalize the Bill of Rights?
4. Why is it important for poor people to have publicly provided attorneys to represent

them?
5. How does protecting the rights of the accused protect all citizens?
6. Why is free speech critical to civil liberties?
7. What are the limits to free speech?
8. Given the separation of church and state, can a student lead a prayer group in an

empty classroom during lunchtime in a public school?
9. What is the basis for a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Key Terms
capital cases Cases involving the death
penalty.

civil liberties Rights that individuals enjoy,
usually referring to personal freedoms.

civil rights Usually pertain to the rights
of groups to enjoy the liberties oth-
erwise enjoyed by individuals free of
discrimination.

Due Process Clause A clause in the 14th
and 15th amendments that safeguards the
right of the accused to receive fair treatment
in the judicial process.

Establishment Clause The clause in the
First Amendment that prohibits the estab-
lishment of a state-sponsored religion.

exclusionary rule Illegally obtained evi-
dence cannot be used against the accused to
convict him or her.

Free Exercise Clause The clause in the
First Amendment that guarantees individu-
als the right to practice their religion freely.

Lemon test The criteria that must be met
if governments are to provide services to
church-related schools.

Miranda rights The right to remain silent,
to have legal counsel, and to have counsel
appointed if one cannot afford it; read upon
arrest to all individuals suspected of com-
mitting a crime.

separate but equal The idea that there
could be separate facilities for racial groups
as long as they are equal.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 209 3/24/16 1:46 PM

Summary and Resources

Further Reading
Abraham, H. J. (2003). Freedom and the court: Civil rights and liberties in the United States (8th ed.). Lawrence, KS:

University Press of Kansas.

Barber, S. A. (1986). On what the Constitution means. Baltimore, MD and London, UK: The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.

Dworkin, R. (1985). A matter of principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fisher, L., & Harriger, K. (2013). American constitutional law: Volume 2: Constitutional rights: Civil rights and civil
liberties (10th ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Levinson, S. (2011). Constitutional faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Levin-Waldman, O. M. (1996). Reconceiving liberalism: Dilemmas of contemporary liberal public policy. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Lewis, A. (1989). Gideon’s trumpet. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London, UK: J. W. Parker and Son.

Tribe, L. H. (1986). Constitutional choices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tribe, L. H. (1992). Abortion: The clash of absolutes. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

fin82797_08_c08_189-210.indd 210 3/24/16 1:46 PM

10 Elections and Public Opinion

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the purpose and functions of elections in the United States.
• Analyze the relationship among elections, participation, and the democratic process.
• Distinguish between types of elections and analyze the circumstances surrounding realigning

elections.
• Analyze the role of public opinion in elections.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 237 3/24/16 1:44 PM

Section

10.1 Purpose of Elections

In the 1994 midterm election, the Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives
to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House;
they also took control of the U.S. Senate as well as many state governorships. Pundits viewed
this as a defeat for President Bill Clinton and were quick to say that the election represented
a rejection of his efforts to bring about health care reform. Others claimed it was due to the
inability of the Democrat-controlled Congress to accomplish anything substantive, including
health care reform. Still others interpreted the change as a sign that the people had changed
their party loyalties. Not only were people voting for Republican candidates, but they were
increasingly identifying as Republicans. The 1994 election was indeed significant. Republi-
cans would control the House of Representatives until the 2006 midterm election, and they
would control the Senate until 2001.

In this chapter, we explore this and other elections in the context of their time and what they
tell us about the contemporary American population. We also examine the role that elections
generally play in the American political process. Elections are more than a matter of choosing
individuals to govern. Elections tell us about what the people think is important, and they say
something about the political values of a nation. Through elections, the people participate in
the democratic process and hold public officials in constitutional government accountable.
But the shifting winds of public opinion can also lead to unpredictable results.

10.1 Purpose of Elections

The United States uses elections to choose its leaders. Voting is the most basic form of political
participation and is assumed to be a basic right in a democracy. However, elections are impor-
tant for other reasons as well. In the United States, elections serve three basic functions:

1. They provide an essen-
tial basis for democratic
expression.

2. They provide for a peaceful
transfer of power.

3. They allow citizens, as a
political community, to
offer their tacit acceptance
of the American constitu-
tional tradition. By vot-
ing, citizens reaffirm their
commitment to the social
contract that the Constitu-
tion represents.

Democratic Expression

People express themselves in a democracy by casting ballots either in person or by mail. Cast-
ing a vote allows them to express their preferences, which is an extension of human agency.
When people vote for candidates who currently hold office, they affirm their support for the

Stock Connection/SuperStock

Through elections, American voters offer their tacit
acceptance of the constitutional tradition. Elections
also provide for the peaceful transfer of power and are
the basis of democratic expression.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 238 3/24/16 1:44 PM

Section 10.1 Purpose of Elections

current government, and when they vote against those who currently hold office, they regis-
ter their opposition to that same government.

Citizens achieve the greatest state of democratic expression when they can control the cir-
cumstances affecting their lives. In the political world, people control their circumstances by
electing the government that will make decisions on their behalf. Elections are the vehicles by
which the people achieve their political voice.

Peaceful Transfer of Power

Americans may take a peaceful transfer of power for granted, but this is actually one of the
unique features of the American legacy. When the Framers of the Constitution constructed
the American political system, they wanted to ensure peaceful transfers of power. A peaceful
transfer of power—that is, using the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun—represented
a serious break from past experience. The election of 1800 illustrates this point. John Adams,
George Washington’s vice president, who also was a Federalist, was elected president in 1796
after Washington opted not to seek a third term. Thomas Jefferson, the lead author of the U.S.
Declaration of Independence who strongly opposed the centralized federal structure, lost to
Adams in 1796. Jefferson became Adams’s vice president because the original Constitution
(since changed with the 12th Amendment in 1804) extended the vice presidency to the per-
son who received the second-highest number of electoral votes in the presidential election.
Adams ran for reelection in 1800, and Jefferson ran for president a second time. This time,
Jefferson won. The peaceful, though not apolitical, transfer of power that resulted from this
election, from the nation’s first two presidents, both Federalists, to Jefferson, a Democratic-
Republican, reflected the Framers’ aspirations.

Among the precedents that George Washington set as the first president was his personal
choice not to seek more than two terms in office. Until the 22nd Amendment was ratified in
1951, the Constitution did not expressly prohibit presidents from serving two terms even
though only one president (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) served more than two terms before
the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Washington’s action paved the way for the election of his
replacement and the tradition of peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Because
Americans can trust that power will be peacefully transferred, they do not have to resort to
violence to change the government.

Tacit Acceptance of American Constitutional Tradition

The U.S. Constitution is in many respects a social contract between the government and the
people, but it was entered into by a generation of people from whom current Americans are
far removed. Thomas Jefferson thought it would be a good idea if every generation held a con-
stitutional convention so that each could choose the governing arrangements that would best
meet its needs. But because Americans choose their government through periodic elections,
they do not really need to convene new constitutional conventions. Elections enable them to
offer their tacit consent, or implied agreement, to the basic social contract of the Constitu-
tion. By freely participating in the political process through elections, Americans agree to the
political arrangements that govern them. Elections, then, in a very broad sense fulfill a public
support function.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 239 3/24/16 1:44 PM

Section

10.2 Public Participation

Although a majority of the country may be eligible to vote, not everyone does. On one level,
because elections are critical to democracy, many regard voting as a civic obligation, similar to
jury duty. But on another level, freedom to participate in the democratic process also means
the freedom not to participate.

The United States does not mandate participation in elections. It also has one of the lowest
rates of voter participation compared with other representative democracies. If a group of
people chooses not to vote and the government then pursues policies that this group does not
like, do these people have a reasonable basis to complain?

Are politicians obligated to represent all the people, or only those who vote? In theory, all citizens
have a legitimate claim to be represented by elected officials. In reality, however, politicians tend
to represent only those who vote. Of course, the larger question is what it means to talk about
the importance of voting if people fail to exercise this basic right. Another issue is that—given
the long-fought battle for civil rights, of which voting was most prominent—if large segments
of the population opt not to vote, what was the point of fighting for the right in the first place?

Who Votes?

American citizens age 18 or older are eligible to vote, but the “typical voter” usually falls into
a particular set of demographic categories. For example, various studies have shown that a
person’s position in society based on economic class or education, or socioeconomic status,
is a key determinant of who votes. Those with a higher socioeconomic status are more likely
to vote than those with a lower socioeconomic status are.

Older people are more likely to vote than younger people are, women are slightly more likely
to vote than men are, and Whites are more likely to vote than members of racial or ethnic
minority groups are. Further, those with a strong political ideology, often assumed from their
families, religious groups, or other social influences, are more likely to vote than those with-
out a strong ideology, religious commitment, or social connection are.

Reasons for Nonvoting

The electorate consists of those who are eligible to vote, whether they vote or not. Voter turn-
out during presidential elections usually falls between 50% and 60% and is even lower dur-
ing midterm congressional elections (see Figure 10.1). This means that at least 40% of the
electorate chooses not to participate. Why is this the case?

Figure 10.1: Voting rates in congressional and presidential
elections: 1978–2014

In the years since 1980, American voter turnout has generally decreased.

From “Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978–2014,” by T. File, 2015 (http://www.census.gov/content
/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577 ). Copyright 2015 by U.S. Census Bureau. Reprinted with permission.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 240 3/24/16 1:44 PM

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577

Section 10.2 Public Participation

Of course, the public support function rests on the same assumptions of trust that the peace-
ful transfer of power does. Only because the people trust that the government in power will
respect their wishes can elections represent this tacit acceptance. After all, if citizens partici-
pate in the political process by voting, rather than seeking to overthrow it through rioting and
rebellion, it must follow that they are basically happy and accept the legitimacy of the system.
But if it can no longer govern effectively, the government loses its legitimacy.
10.2 Public Participation
Although a majority of the country may be eligible to vote, not everyone does. On one level,
because elections are critical to democracy, many regard voting as a civic obligation, similar to
jury duty. But on another level, freedom to participate in the democratic process also means
the freedom not to participate.
The United States does not mandate participation in elections. It also has one of the lowest
rates of voter participation compared with other representative democracies. If a group of
people chooses not to vote and the government then pursues policies that this group does not
like, do these people have a reasonable basis to complain?
Are politicians obligated to represent all the people, or only those who vote? In theory, all citizens
have a legitimate claim to be represented by elected officials. In reality, however, politicians tend
to represent only those who vote. Of course, the larger question is what it means to talk about
the importance of voting if people fail to exercise this basic right. Another issue is that—given
the long-fought battle for civil rights, of which voting was most prominent—if large segments
of the population opt not to vote, what was the point of fighting for the right in the first place?
Who Votes?
American citizens age 18 or older are eligible to vote, but the “typical voter” usually falls into
a particular set of demographic categories. For example, various studies have shown that a
person’s position in society based on economic class or education, or socioeconomic status,
is a key determinant of who votes. Those with a higher socioeconomic status are more likely
to vote than those with a lower socioeconomic status are.
Older people are more likely to vote than younger people are, women are slightly more likely
to vote than men are, and Whites are more likely to vote than members of racial or ethnic
minority groups are. Further, those with a strong political ideology, often assumed from their
families, religious groups, or other social influences, are more likely to vote than those with-
out a strong ideology, religious commitment, or social connection are.
Reasons for Nonvoting
The electorate consists of those who are eligible to vote, whether they vote or not. Voter turn-
out during presidential elections usually falls between 50% and 60% and is even lower dur-
ing midterm congressional elections (see Figure 10.1). This means that at least 40% of the
electorate chooses not to participate. Why is this the case?
Figure 10.1: Voting rates in congressional and presidential
elections: 1978–2014
In the years since 1980, American voter turnout has generally decreased.
From “Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978–2014,” by T. File, 2015 (http://www.census.gov/content
/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577 ). Copyright 2015 by U.S. Census Bureau. Reprinted with permission.

The Requirement to Register
All but one state requires that eligible voters be registered in order to vote. Voter registration
has proven to be a barrier to voting. Supporters of mandatory registration argue that registra-
tion is a safeguard against fraud. Yet registration can be burdensome because it requires that
forms be completed and submitted to the local supervisor of elections in advance of an elec-
tion. Of the 49 states requiring that voters register, half require registration between 15 and
30 days in advance, while the other half require registration between 0 (Election Day registra-
tion) and 14 days before Election Day. Federal law prohibits states from requiring registration
beyond 30 days before Election Day. While voter registration may be inconvenient, it helps
emphasize the importance of voting and assumes that responsible citizens will complete the
process.

Many argue that one response to low voter turnout is to take additional steps to ease access
to registration. After passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993, various
states implemented a motor-voter process, which allows people to register to vote when

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 241 3/24/16 1:44 PM

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577

Section 10.2 Public Participation

they register their cars with the state Department of Motor Vehicles or apply for or renew a
driver’s license. (Of course, for those who do not drive, this may not be helpful.) The NVRA
also allowed people to register by mail or when applying for various social services.

The Disillusionment
of Poor Voters
Low-income people are less likely to
vote for various reasons. These rea-
sons may include the inconvenience
and potentially lost wages to take
time off to go to the polls, believ-
ing that voting will not affect the
political process, or believing that
elected officials do not understand
their situation. Low-income people
may believe that electing candidates
who promise to enact economic and
social programs that benefit lower-
income groups will have little bear-
ing on their lives. This belief may
stem from the broker party nature
of the system. Additionally, powerful
interest groups enjoy advantages over individuals who are not organized.

When people opt out of the system because they believe it does not represent their interests
well, their concerns become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many politicians believe that there is no
point in campaigning in areas or neighborhoods with high percentages of nonvoters. As noted
in the last chapter, running for office is very expensive. Candidates must make strategic deci-
sions about where to allocate their resources. They are more likely to spend their time and
money in neighborhoods that are known to have relatively high turnout and are less likely to
pay much attention to low-turnout populations.

Constitutional Bases for Expanding Suffrage

Voting eligibility is addressed in just a few places in the Constitution. The first is the
15th Amendment (see Figure 10.2), ratified in 1870, which states that a citizen cannot be
denied the right to vote by the national government or any of the states on the basis of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude. This amendment provided the constitutional basis
for newly freed slaves to be eligible to vote after the Civil War. Next is the 19th Amendment,
ratified in 1920, which says that citizens cannot be denied the right to vote on account of sex.
This amendment granted women the right to vote.

The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, extended the right to vote for president to residents
of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). Before the amendment was ratified, Electoral
College votes were given only to states, and because Washington, D.C. is a district and not a
state, D.C. residents could not vote for the president. The 23rd Amendment gave to Washington,
D.C. the same number of Electoral College votes as the smallest state. As each state is guaranteed

Visions of America/SuperStock

One purpose of voter registration is to prevent fraud.
However, registration is often considered a barrier to
voting because it requires individuals to fill out and
submit a form by a state-mandated deadline.

Figure 10.2: Voting eligibility according to the Constitution

Voting eligibility is addressed in only four places in the Constitution, and all of them are amendments.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 242 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.2 Public Participation
they register their cars with the state Department of Motor Vehicles or apply for or renew a
driver’s license. (Of course, for those who do not drive, this may not be helpful.) The NVRA
also allowed people to register by mail or when applying for various social services.
The Disillusionment
of Poor Voters
Low-income people are less likely to
vote for various reasons. These rea-
sons may include the inconvenience
and potentially lost wages to take
time off to go to the polls, believ-
ing that voting will not affect the
political process, or believing that
elected officials do not understand
their situation. Low-income people
may believe that electing candidates
who promise to enact economic and
social programs that benefit lower-
income groups will have little bear-
ing on their lives. This belief may
stem from the broker party nature
of the system. Additionally, powerful
interest groups enjoy advantages over individuals who are not organized.
When people opt out of the system because they believe it does not represent their interests
well, their concerns become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many politicians believe that there is no
point in campaigning in areas or neighborhoods with high percentages of nonvoters. As noted
in the last chapter, running for office is very expensive. Candidates must make strategic deci-
sions about where to allocate their resources. They are more likely to spend their time and
money in neighborhoods that are known to have relatively high turnout and are less likely to
pay much attention to low-turnout populations.
Constitutional Bases for Expanding Suffrage
Voting eligibility is addressed in just a few places in the Constitution. The first is the
15th Amendment (see Figure 10.2), ratified in 1870, which states that a citizen cannot be
denied the right to vote by the national government or any of the states on the basis of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude. This amendment provided the constitutional basis
for newly freed slaves to be eligible to vote after the Civil War. Next is the 19th Amendment,
ratified in 1920, which says that citizens cannot be denied the right to vote on account of sex.
This amendment granted women the right to vote.
The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, extended the right to vote for president to residents
of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). Before the amendment was ratified, Electoral
College votes were given only to states, and because Washington, D.C. is a district and not a
state, D.C. residents could not vote for the president. The 23rd Amendment gave to Washington,
D.C. the same number of Electoral College votes as the smallest state. As each state is guaranteed
Visions of America/SuperStock
One purpose of voter registration is to prevent fraud.
However, registration is often considered a barrier to
voting because it requires individuals to fill out and
submit a form by a state-mandated deadline.
Figure 10.2: Voting eligibility according to the Constitution
Voting eligibility is addressed in only four places in the Constitution, and all of them are amendments.

a minimum of three Electoral College votes, the District of Columbia was guaranteed three Elec-
toral College votes as well.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, states that the right to vote in national elections cannot be
denied for failing to pay a poll tax. The 24th Amendment was proposed and ratified in response
to Southern states that were using such taxes to disqualify poor Blacks from voting. Finally, the
26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the legal voting age to 18. While some states allowed
those over 18 to vote, other states required a minimum age of 21.

Voter eligibility is otherwise assumed to be a matter of states’ rights. States have enjoyed the
power to determine who is eligible to vote while also handling their voter registration. States
began eliminating property qualifications in the 1820s, and it was the Southern states that tar-
geted voting barriers toward African Americans. The women’s suffrage movement originally
began as a grassroots movement on a state-by-state basis, with Wyoming being the first state to
allow women to vote in state and local elections, in 1893.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 243 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

10.3 Types of Elections

The constitutional amendments
that expanded suffrage, federal leg-
islation such as the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, and key U.S. Supreme
Court cases each removed voting
barriers that were erected by the
states. In fact, the Voting Rights Act
prohibited states from imposing
any “voting qualification or prereq-
uisite to voting, or standard, prac-
tice, or procedure . . . to deny or
abridge the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account
of race or color.” It was Congress’s
specific intention to outlaw the
practice of requiring otherwise
qualified voters to pass literacy
tests to register to vote, which had
been another method, in addition
to poll taxes, by which Southern
states denied African Americans
the right to vote.

Increasing the Voter Rolls

Both parties seek to increase their election chances by increasing their registration numbers.
In recent years, both parties have sought to find new voters among the Latino population.
For example, when Republican President George W. Bush campaigned for office, he prided
himself on being able to speak fluent Spanish in an attempt to increase Latino support for
Republican candidates.

10.3 Types of Elections

Political scientist V. O. Key, Jr. (1955, 1959) famously observed that there are four types of
elections: maintaining, deviating, reinstating, and realigning.

Maintaining Elections

A maintaining election is one in which the majority party, which holds power, such as the
majority party in Congress, continues to hold power following an election. This type of elec-
tion requires a continuation of party loyalty among the party-in-the-electorate, which assumes
that voters will remain loyal to their party by voting for candidates sharing their party label.

This type of election is a maintaining election because the allegiance of the voters has not
changed, probably because the nation is not facing a major crisis or, if facing a crisis, voters
believe that the government in place and the party in power are handling it well. A

Suffragettes stand in front of the Woman Suffrage head-
quarters in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1912. The 19th Amend-
ment, which gave women the right to vote, was ratified
in 1920.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 244 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.3 Types of Elections

maintaining election, then, is about preserving the status quo. A pattern of maintaining elec-
tions may result in representatives becoming complacent. If the majority party in govern-
ment can rely on long-standing party loyalty among the electorate, it may not feel the need to
be as close to the people as it would if the races were more competitive.

Deviating Elections

A deviating election occurs when
short-term forces overtake long-
term party loyalties. Voters cast
their ballots for the party out of
power, the minority party, displac-
ing the majority party from power.
While voters may support the party
to which they do not belong in this
election and maybe the next, these
voters remain loyal to their party.
They maintain their allegiance to
their party even though they feel
compelled to vote for the other
party due to short-term forces,
such as candidates and issues, that
change with each election (either
because different candidates and
issues get shifted or because the magnitude of certain issues changes). The result is seen as
a temporary deviation from the norm because the expectation is that, once the crisis is over,
the former majority party will be returned to power.

Reinstating Elections

The return to power of a former
majority party following a deviat-
ing election is called a reinstat-
ing election. A reinstating election
brings a return to the status quo. It
also verifies that whatever forces
resulted in the deviation were short
lived. Because the political land-
scape remains unchanged, reinstat-
ing elections have much in common
with maintaining and deviating
elections. Each represents relative
stability in the composition of both
the party-in-the-electorate and the
party-in-the-government, with the
electorate generally voting on the
basis of traditional party loyalties.

Associated Press

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential election victory is
an example of a deviating election because large num-
bers of Democratic voters crossed party lines to vote
for him.

age fotostock/SuperStock

Political scientist V. O. Key, Jr. observed that there are
four types of elections. Which of these do you think
best describes the 2008 presidential election?

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 245 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.3 Types of Elections

Some may argue that the election of 2008, in which Democrat Barack Obama was elected, was
a reinstating election after Republican President George W. Bush’s two terms. Bush’s election
in 2000, in which he won the Electoral College vote but lost the popular vote to Democratic
Vice President Al Gore, deviated from the two previous Democratic presidential victories in
1992 and 1996.

Realigning Elections

A realigning election produces a major change in the composition of the party-in-the-
government following a massive shift in the party-in-the-electorate. Voters abandon longtime
party loyalties and shift their allegiance from the majority party to the minority party, which
results in the minority party becoming the new majority party. As V. O. Key, Jr. (1955, 1959)
saw it, a realigning election is a critical election because it represents a massive and durable
shift in party loyalty that results in a long-term change in characteristics of the electorate and
the composition of government. For an election to be considered critical, the voter realign-
ment must be both sharp and durable. To be sharp, voter participation is relatively high, mak-
ing it clear that whatever divisions within the electorate existed prior to the election have
been fundamentally altered. The realignment must also occur at all levels of government.

For a realignment to be durable, the new electoral composition must persist over time. To
measure the sharpness of the shift, an issue or a set of issues that would cause voters to make
a monumental change would be essential. It would be extremely difficult to examine a single
election isolated from its larger political context to determine durability. A momentous event,
such as a war or a deep recession, that reorders the political landscape in ways not seen
before is required.

Key argued that for there to be such a massive shift in one election, there would have to be a
significant cleavage, or division, among the electorate. The people might argue, for example,
over whether the government should provide universal health care; cleavage may be said to
exist between conservatives who espouse individual liberty and limited government and lib-
erals who support greater equality and more active government. If times are good and most
people are confident about their economic future, perhaps the majority party that supports
health care reform will remain in power. But a deep recession resulting in high unemployment
and increased anxiety can cause the existing division to become more pronounced.

Key also recognized that there have been few instances in American history when voters
switched allegiance in a single election. Key expanded his concept of critical elections to include
gradual shifts over a long period. A given election might represent a phase in a long-term pro-
cess of declining group solidarity. The critical election, then, might represent the culmination
of this process. In the critical election, voters abandon their party and switch allegiance to the
other major party. Students of critical elections suggest that they occur every 30 years or so.

Consequences of Realignment
The most profound consequence of realignment is a change in the party-in-the-government,
which in turn often means a significant change in policy direction. Had the electorate been
pleased with the direction of the country and the policies that it was pursuing prior to the
election, there would not have been a realignment.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 246 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.3 Types of Elections

Examples of Realignment
The election of 1932, which occurred after the Great Depression hit, was an example of a
realigning election because the Republicans lost the majority control of both houses of Con-
gress to the Democrats, which occurred for nearly all elections until 1994. Democrat Frank-
lin Roosevelt unseated incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover, while many state
houses changed to Democratic rule. All of the presidents elected from 1860 until 1932, with
two exceptions, were Republican. Because of the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin
Roosevelt came to office backed by an electoral coalition that included ethnic and religious
minorities, blue-collar workers, and union members, as well as the traditional Southern
states. This new coalition would remain the base of the Democratic Party until the late 1960s.

Yet suggesting that a particular election was a critical election because realignment occurred
is to be retrospective. It does not necessarily mean that one can predict future elections based
on what happened in the past. As an example, consider that political commentator Kevin Phil-
lips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969 in an attempt to analyze the 1968 elec-
tion. According to Phillips (1969), Richard Nixon’s election was the beginning of an electoral
realignment because more people were moving to the suburbs and these suburban communi-
ties were voting Republican. Beginning with Nixon, the Republicans held the presidency from
1980 to 1988 and 2000 to 2008. Not only did suburban communities shift Republican, so too
did many Southern states, because they were upset that Democratic President Lyndon John-
son signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which took power away from the Democratic-
dominated Southern states in managing elections. Because the base of the Democratic Party
had been concentrated in the cities, Phillips reasoned, the party would not be able to hold its
majority if the demographics changed to favor suburbia. If Phillips was correct in saying that
1968 was the beginning of a realignment, that would mean that the 1976 election of Demo-
crat Jimmy Carter was a deviation while the 1980 election of Republican Ronald Reagan was
the reinstatement. Carter may have won because of deep divisions over Watergate. Carter’s
opponent, incumbent President Gerald Ford, had been Nixon’s vice president. After Ford
ascended to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation, he had pardoned Nixon for Nixon’s
involvement in the Watergate scandal.

If 1968 was not a realigning elec-
tion, then it was a deviating elec-
tion, with 1976 serving as a
reinstating election, while the
realignment would have happened
in 1980. Nixon won in 1968 in
a close election amid deep divi-
sions over the Vietnam War and
the sense that there was too much
lawlessness in the Democratic
Party, as evidenced by the violence
at the 1968 Democratic Party con-
vention in Chicago. Ultimately, the
answer to whether an election was
a critical election is a matter of
interpretation.

Associated Press

The 1968 presidential election, won by Richard Nixon,
has been called a realigning election.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 247 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

Primaries and Caucuses

Presidential elections begin at the state level through a series of primaries and caucuses.
Since the 1960s, states have increasingly adopted primary elections far more than caucuses
as a means to select candidates. Most primaries are either open primaries or closed primaries.
Most states hold closed primaries, where only registered party members may vote in that
party’s primary. In open primaries, by contrast, registered voters, no matter their party reg-
istration, or no party registration, may vote in one, but not both, party primaries.

Another way of selecting candidates is through the caucus system. Caucuses tend to be found
in smaller states (such as Iowa) and require a greater time investment from the voters than
casting a ballot. In a caucus, voters report to their polling station, in which each candidate has
an area. Voters then go to the area of their preferred candidate, but voters in other areas, that
is, supporters of other candidates, can challenge the preferences of others. This often leads
to a general discussion of why one candidate is preferable to another. At the end of the night,
support in each area in each precinct is tallied up and delegates are apportioned on the basis
of the percentage of support that each candidate received.

One key benefit to the caucus system is that participants must be familiar with candidates’
issue positions so that they can intelligently defend their choices. Yet state-level caucuses
tend to demonstrate low turnout because they require more commitment from voters. As a
consequence, the outcomes may not be entirely representative of the state electorate because
only party activists tend to participate. Three fourths of the states use primaries for presiden-
tial nominations.

10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

The outcome of an election often reflects the tide of public opinion. As U.S. Senator Barack
Obama defeated U.S. Senator John McCain in 2008, the electoral outcome can be said to reflect
various factors linked to public opinion toward Obama, McCain, the incumbent president and
his party, various issues, partisanship, a combination of these, or something else. Public opin-
ion also plays a key role in elections because candidates utilize pollsters to gauge public opin-
ion throughout the election season. Still, as much as we talk about the importance of public
opinion in democracy, it is not always easy to gauge.

Defining Public Opinion: Values, Ideology, and Attitudes

Public opinion generally encompasses values, political ideology, and attitudes. Values rep-
resent deep-rooted goals, aspirations, and ideals that shape an individual’s perceptions of
political issues. As an example, most Americans believe in freedom as a fundamental Ameri-
can value. Though we may all define it differently, most people aspire to live freely.

Differences over the meaning of freedom involve political ideology. As a matter of ideology, one
might think that personal freedom is maximized when government is limited in its function.
A limited government would mean little regulation, low taxes, and very few social programs.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 248 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

Such an ideology is often referred to as conservative. The political ideology that values gov-
ernment support for disadvantaged populations or during periods of hardship is considered
liberal or progressive. An attitude is a specific view about a particular issue, personality, or
event that is shaped by ideology.

Values, political ideology, and attitudes may be affected by various factors, including socio-
economic status, family background, and one’s political environment.

Measuring Public Opinion Through Polling

The easiest way to measure public opinion is through surveys. Analysts, candidates, and office-
holders routinely conduct polls to get a sense of public attitudes toward particular issues.

Polls conducted using scientific techniques are more accurate than those that are not. Scien-
tific polls take a random sample of the population such that each person in the sample has an
equal chance of being selected. A poll of registered Democratic activists is not a valid sample
of the public because the respondents may be more ideological than the public and, thus, not
represent the public’s views on government and issues.

Today, most people have phones,
which was not true in the 1940s.
Sampling from the telephone book
would not produce a sample rep-
resenting the public. In the early
days of polling, there were some
significant inaccuracies. The most
famous case was the 1948 election,
where pollsters predicted Thomas
Dewey’s defeat of President Harry
Truman. Dewey went to bed think-
ing that he had won, only to find out
that he had lost.

Forces That Shape Values
and Ideology

Individuals develop their values and
ideology through agents of social-
ization, which are the institutions
and influences that help shape one’s basic political worldview. Four important agencies of
socialization are the family, social groups, education, and prevailing political conditions.

The most important agent of socialization is the family. For example, children take on the ide-
ology and other public perspectives of their parents, while family socioeconomic status might
also affect one’s political ideology and values.

The most famous case of polling inaccuracy was the
1948 election, where pollsters prematurely predicted
Thomas Dewey’s defeat of President Harry Truman.
Truman is shown here holding up an erroneous head-
line from a newspaper that went to press early on elec-
tion night.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 249 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

The second most important agent of socialization is education. Educated persons might think
critically and be more open to competing ideas, while someone whose education focuses on
reinforcing core values without questioning them will likely take on those same ideological
approaches.

People are also socialized by the types of social groups, such as interest groups or churches, to
which they belong. A social group is an important reinforcement because people are interact-
ing with others who share their values. Finally, political values and ideology are often affected
by prevailing political and economic conditions.

Cleavages in Public Opinion

It is tempting to talk about American public opinion as though there is one unified public. But
public opinion is characterized by deep divisions across worldviews and the political ideolo-
gies on which those worldviews are based. Factors affecting these cleavages include occupa-
tion, race, religion, and socioeconomic status.

Individuals in higher-paying occupations may view tax policy differently from how individu-
als in lower-paying occupations do. Similarly, as average incomes tend to be higher among
Republicans, there is often more opposition to new or increased taxes among Republicans
compared with Democrats. Democrats, whose average income is lower than that of Republi-
cans, may be more likely to favor increased or new taxes as a means of promoting welfare and
other forms of support for lower-income groups.

While occupation may account for
varying policy attitudes, it may
not be as important in explaining
other political attitudes. Race is
an important variable that affects
policy views. Affirmative action,
for instance, divides public opin-
ion along racial lines. Blacks tend
to support affirmative action pro-
grams, while Whites tend to oppose
affirmative action due to concerns
about reverse discrimination. Still,
such cleavages are not absolute.
More affluent Whites tend to sup-
port affirmative action, while many
successful Blacks oppose it because
they believe that it stigmatizes

them. At the same time, partisanship affects support for affirmative action, as Democrats
more strongly support affirmative action on the grounds that it promotes equal opportunity,
while Republicans tend to oppose affirmative action because they believe that it limits indi-
vidual opportunities for success.

Associated Press/Paul Sancya

Affirmative action deeply divides public opinion along
racial lines.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 250 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

Religion is also an important source of cleavage. Catholics and evangelical Christians tend to
oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, which may affect vote choice. Evangelical Christians
favor school prayer more than other religious groups do. Meanwhile, Jews tend to oppose
school prayer and often see it as a threat to First Amendment religious protections.

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
Elections are a staple of the American political system, and through elections the public
achieves democratic expression. Elections enable the peaceful transfer of power, which is fun-
damental to democracy. Through elections, the public offers its tacit consent for the American
constitutional tradition. Although elections serve an important function, election outcomes
may not represent public preferences, in part because much of the eligible electorate does not
vote. Voting is a matter of individual preference, and the freedom to vote includes the freedom
not to vote. But non-participation is particularly problematic in the United States because
most of those who do not vote tend to be poor, and the poor often choose not to vote because
they do not believe that the political system is responsive to their needs. When people choose
not to vote, elected officials might not feel as obligated to represent them. The effects of non-
participation, then, may be to distort the representative function of elections.

As critical as elections are to the democratic process, they may also reveal much about citi-
zens’ beliefs and core values. Analysts often evaluate elections within the context of criti-
cal elections, whether there has been a sharp and durable shift in party affiliation following
deep political cleavages, resulting in a new majority party in power. A critical election may
result in a new policy direction for the country. A critical election may reveal that the public
is not of one mind with regard to what constitutes its core beliefs and values. This means that
there are multiple publics, which often break down along class, educational, occupational,
and racial lines.

Measuring public opinion is important to the electoral process. But it is not always clear.
When members of Congress take a position on an issue, they might be responding to public
opinion as reported either in polls or in what is being reported in the press. As we will see in
Chapter 12, this means that the press also plays an important role in American politics.

Key Ideas to Remember

• Through elections, citizens express themselves as a political community, give their
tacit acceptance of the constitutional arrangements that govern them, and achieve a
peaceful transfer of power.

• Voting is the most basic form of public participation, but those with a higher socio-
economic status tend to participate more. The effect of nonvoting might be to distort
the democratic process.

• Nonvoting tends to be more concentrated among lower-income groups, largely
because they do not think that voting will significantly improve their lives. Register-
ing to vote has proven to be a significant barrier for some groups. Attempts to regis-
ter more voters could significantly increase the number of people voting.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 251 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

• V. O. Key, Jr. identified four types of elections, with a realigning election identified as
a critical election. For an election to be critical, there would have to be a sharp and
durable realignment among the electorate in terms of party affiliation, as measured
by significant and lasting change in the party-in-the-government. The realignment
would be brought on by deep divisions in the country that might be precipitated by a
severe crisis.

• Elections often reflect changes in public opinion, which encompasses values, politi-
cal ideology, and attitudes.

Questions to Consider

1. Why does the United States have elections?
2. Why are elections critical to the peaceful transfer of power?
3. What demographic factors are most likely to predict whether an individual votes?
4. Why do some people choose not to participate in the political process?
5. What does V. O. Key, Jr.’s typology of elections tell us about the nature of American

politics?
6. How does public opinion relate to values and political ideology?
7. What are some of the sources of the opinions that people have, and what are the

bases for cleavages in public opinion?
8. What are the most important reasons contributing to lower voter turnout in mid-

term versus presidential elections?
9. Given Key’s definition of a critical election, can we say that the 1994 election was an

example of one? Why or why not?

Key Terms

agents of socialization Institutions that
help shape an individual’s political values.

cleavage The division of voters into voting
blocs.

closed primaries Elections for a statewide
presidential candidate in which one can vote
only in the party primary that one is regis-
tered for.

critical election An election in which a
major party realignment occurs.

motor-voter A system of voter registration
whereby people register to vote when they
register their cars or apply for or renew a
driver’s license.

open primaries Elections for a statewide
presidential candidate in which one can vote
in either party primary, regardless of party
affiliation.

socioeconomic status One’s standing or
position in society based on economic class
or educational attainment.

tacit consent Giving effective agreement
through a behavior, such as voting.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 252 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

Further Reading
Abraham, H. J. (1955). Compulsory voting. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press.

Burnham, W. D. (1970). Critical elections and the mainspring of American politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Co.

Gosnell, H. F. (1977). Getting out the vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Santa Barbara, CA: Green-
wood Press.

Hardy, B. W., Kenski, K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the
2008 election. Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, L. R., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (2005). Inequality and American democracy: What we know and what we need to
know. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Key, V. O., Jr. (1955). A theory of critical elections. The Journal of Politics, 17, 3–18.

Key, V. O., Jr. (1959). Secular realignment and the party system. The Journal of Politics, 21, 198–210.

Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review,
91(1), 1–14.

Neckerman, K. M. (Ed.). (2004). Social inequality. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.

Phillips, K. (1969). The emerging Republican majority. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Piven, F. F., Cloward, R. A., & Cohen, J. (Eds.). (2000). Why Americans still don’t vote: And why politicians want it
that way. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Sundquist, J. L. (1983). Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United
States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 253 3/24/16 1:45 PM

fin82797_10_c10_237-254.indd 254 3/24/16 1:45 PM

9 Political Parties and Interest Groups

Associated Press/Stephen Savoia

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the functions and purposes of political parties in the United States.
• Analyze the historical evolution of the American party system and the forces that have served as

catalysts for their transformations.
• Distinguish between two-party and multiple-party systems and analyze the political implica-

tions of each.
• Describe the role of interest groups in American politics.
• Evaluate the challenge of interest groups within the context of constitutional representation.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 211 3/24/16 1:45 PM

As you may recall from the discussion in Chapter 1, when Congress overhauled the health
care system in March 2010, it did not pass a single-payer system similar to the one in Canada,
which is funded entirely by public money. Rather, it passed a host of regulations along with a
requirement that uninsured individuals purchase insurance from private companies, which
is often referred to as the individual mandate. Additionally, it provided for subsidies for those
too poor to pay for insurance on their own. Achieving the Affordable Care Act, which some call
“Obamacare” because it was championed by President Obama, required compromise among
various constituencies and interests. On the one hand, that the Affordable Care Act was passed
was a major accomplishment for the Democrats, the political party that has attempted to
secure accessible health care since the 1930s. But on the other hand, the inability to achieve
it for so many years speaks to the large number of interest groups arrayed against it and their
tremendous influence in the American political system.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton attempted to introduce health care reform, only to be
opposed by numerous interest groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA),
the insurance industry, various union groups, and the American Association of Retired Per-
sons (AARP). The reasons that these groups opposed reform were as varied as the groups
themselves. The AMA objected because it was concerned that its members (primarily doc-
tors) would earn less money. AARP opposed reform because it was concerned that reform
would mean health care inferior to that provided by Medicare, the federally funded medical
insurance program available to senior citizens. Insurance companies worried that their prof-
its would be diminished, and unions were concerned that any public health insurance would
be less comprehensive than the premium packages they already had won through collective
bargaining. These interest groups each played a role in defeating Clinton’s efforts to reform
the American health care system.

Thus, it was no surprise that when the issue came up again during the 2008 presidential cam-
paign, the same interest groups expressed the same concerns. Initially, the House of Repre-
sentatives passed a health care bill that included a “public option,” a government-sponsored
plan for those who did not have or could not get private insurance. These interest groups
opposed the public option for the same reasons they had opposed the concept of “universal”
health care in the past. Insurance companies were also joined by pharmaceutical companies
similarly concerned about their profits.

This time, though, the White House made a series of deals with these interest groups to gain
their support for the Senate version of the bill, which left out the public option. The AMA
supported the deal because it was promised higher reimbursements. AARP supported it
because the organization was promised no Medicare cuts. The insurance industry supported
it because the individual mandate promised that more customers would be buying policies.
Unions began to support it because their premium insurance packages would be exempt from
taxation. Understandably, the casual observer might think that the law was written to serve
the interest groups, not the public. At the same time, the new law was considered a victory for
the Democratic Party.

As this case study on the Affordable Care Act suggests, political parties and interest groups
are very much part of the American political landscape, and these entities direct much of
the nature of current American politics. In this chapter, we examine the roles of both inter-
est groups and political parties in American politics, and their implications for American
democracy.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 212 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Is Its Purpose?

Political parties are organizations that seek to influence government policy by taking posi-
tions on current and public issues, nominating candidates, and trying to get them elected to
office. The Framers of the Constitution took a dim view of political parties. They considered
them to be factions of self-interest that placed the welfare of one group above that of the
general public. Worse, the founders feared that such groups might ride roughshod over indi-
vidual rights and liberties. The Framers also understood that party formation would be an
inevitable byproduct of liberty. Free association, after all, meant that like-minded individuals
could interact with one another and that formal organizations would develop around those
associations.

Initially, there were two relatively small political parties (the Federalists and the Democratic-
Republicans, both of which no longer exist, at least in their original form), and they tended to
operate primarily in Congress. But as more people were granted franchise—the right to
vote—political parties emerged as vehicles to get them to the polls.

Political parties in modern democratic societies per-
form five essential functions: (1) they get people
out to vote, (2) they seek to win elections, (3) they
organize the government, (4) they generate symbols
of identification and loyalty, and (5) they implement
policy objectives. The primary purpose of the Ameri-
can party system is to win political office, which
means that getting out the vote is secondary to that
primary purpose. In the United States, winning polit-
ical office would certainly be more difficult if there
were not parties in place to mobilize voters behind
specific candidates and their policy positions. But
this also means that party platforms—the political
positions of the party—are secondary to the primary
purpose of winning political office.

Parties take on three roles in American politics:
party-in-the-organization, party-in-the-government,
and party-in-the-electorate. The party-in-the-orga-
nization consists of activists who seek to define the
issues on which the party will campaign and who will,
at times, run for office. These activists may also work
the phones or go door to door just prior to elections
to remind voters that an election is coming up and try
to attract voters to their particular candidates. Party
activists may serve as delegates to national nominat-
ing conventions.

The party-in-the-government consists of party members who hold public office and whose
members get to organize government and work to pass the agenda on which they campaigned.
The party-in-the-electorate consists of those voters who are registered with the political
party, as well as persons who identify with that party.

A campaign poster from 1888. Ameri-
can political parties have been in
place since shortly after the nation
was founded. Their main function has
been to have their candidates elected
to office.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 213 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Is Its Purpose?

Get Out the Vote

Overall voter turnout is relatively low in the United States, such that turnout in presidential
elections has not exceeded 60% since 1992. Thus, getting people out to vote usually consists
of party activists attempting to register voters. Those least likely to vote are poor people in
poor communities (the reason for this is discussed in Chapter 10), so political party activists
often hold voter registration drives in poor communities and knock on doors to get people
to register. In a tight race, registering new voters can be the difference between victory and
defeat for a party and its candidates. This then leads to the next critical function of parties,
which is winning elections.

Win Elections

The positions taken by American political parties change over time as the preferences of the
electorate change. As an example, the Democratic Party was considered to be the party of
racial segregation until 1965, when a Democratic Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and a
Democratic president signed it. The segregationists, largely concentrated in the South, aban-
doned the Democrats, and the party became one of racial inclusion. As it sought new voters, it
appealed to more people on the left of the political spectrum. As this happened, many others
grew uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and began to switch over to the Republicans. In
an attempt to appeal to disaffected Democrats, the Republican Party became the states’ rights
party. In many respects, American parties follow the competitive market model. In an effort
to attract new customers, a business will introduce new products. So too will political parties.

Both political parties have large national party committees: the Democratic National Com-
mittee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC). These are essentially umbrella
organizations that are responsible for governing political parties on a day-to-day basis. The
most essential national party functions are fundraising and recruiting candidates to run in
various congressional contests. The two national party committees also engage in public rela-
tions efforts on behalf of their parties’ political platforms and support the presidential and
vice-presidential nominee once they are nominated.

As part of their efforts to win elections, the DNC and RNC raise large sums of money. In the
2014 campaign cycle, the DNC raised $168 million, while the RNC raised $195 million. These
monies were then used to assist both Democrats and Republicans in House and Senate races.

Organize Government

Political parties, especially what we refer to as the party-in-the-government, organize the
legislative branch. The party that wins the most seats in a house of Congress gets to control
the leadership of that house. Because the Republican Party won the most seats in the U.S.
House of Representatives in 2014, it continued to control that house of Congress, including
having the power to select the speaker of the House. Senate Republicans gained control of the
Senate from the Democrats, who had held the majority since 2007. The winning party also
takes control of committee chair leadership so that all House committees continued under
Republican control when the new Congress was sworn in in January of 2015 and the Repub-
lican Senate could select committee chairs. The benefit of holding all standing committee

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 214 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Is Its Purpose?

chairs is that the winning party then gets to set the legislative agenda, at least until the next
election. At the same time, because the president works with party leaders in each house of
Congress, such as the House speaker, party control in Congress affects each party’s relation-
ship with the president.

Although all members of Congress
represent their own respective
districts or states, both parties
have party caucuses within each
chamber of Congress. The cau-
cuses often shape policy agendas,
political strategies, and leadership
positions. The House Republican
caucus, for example, determines
the majority party leadership, the
Republican policy agenda, and the
political strategy for achieving it.
Meanwhile, in the House Demo-
cratic caucus, decisions are made
about who will serve as minority
leaders and ranking members,
who are chosen from among mem-
bers of the minority party and
serve as vice chairs of committees

in Congress. The Democratic Party caucus also shapes its strategy for opposing the majority
party strategy.

Party-in-the-government also plays a role in the executive and judicial branches. When presi-
dents make appointments to the Cabinet and other departments and agencies, they usually
choose members of their party. This reinforces continuity with previous administrations of
that party. As an example, when President Obama was looking for experienced Washington
Democrats to staff his administration following his 2008 election, he found that he was select-
ing from among those who had served in the previous Democratic administration of Presi-
dent Bill Clinton. Lawrence Summers, who was selected by President Obama to direct the
National Economic Council, had been Clinton’s secretary of the treasury, while Eric Holder,
who was selected to be Obama’s first attorney general, had been an assistant attorney general
for civil rights in Bill Clinton’s administration.

Similarly, presidents look to appoint members of their party to positions in the judiciary. This
helps to ensure that their appointments will share the same values, particularly because fed-
eral and Supreme Court judges serve life terms with “good behavior.”

Generate Symbols of Identification and Loyalty

Political parties are generally a source of both identification and registration. Voters are often
identified by their party registration, while persons holding state and federal legislative and
executive offices, and some local legislative and executive officials, run with party labels. Fed-
eral judges are usually identified by the party of the president who appointed them.

Associated Press/Andrew Harnik

John Boehner gives up his position as speaker of
the House to Republican Paul Ryan in October 2015.
Boehner announced his intention to resign as speaker
of the House in September 2015.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 215 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Is Its Purpose?

Until the 1960s, voters tended to vote on the basis of party loyalty. Most people joined the
party of their parents and grandparents. From the 1930s, the Democratic Party was viewed
as the party of the middle class, whose members were primarily blue-collar working-class,
low-income groups. The party was also built as a broad coalition of ethnic groups and labor
unions, at least in urban areas. The Republican Party tended to be more patrician and com-
posed of more educated, affluent individuals. For many years, even Democrats who became
educated and financially successful tended to continue identifying with the party of their par-
ents because of party loyalty.

Because of this tradition, elections were relatively predictable: Democrats would vote for
Democratic candidates, and Republicans would vote for Republican candidates. In recent
years, however, fewer people identify with either party, and increasingly more voters con-
sider themselves independents, or political moderates who swing back and forth between
the parties. The number of independents has increased since the 1970s (see Figure 9.1). The
trend actually began during the late 1960s because of a dealignment, where long-term Dem-
ocrats chose not to be identified with the party for a variety of reasons.

Figure 9.1: Rise of independents since the 1980s

Though the percentage of Americans who identify as independents has varied within a range since 1990,
it has risen substantially since the 1980s.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 216 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Is Its Purpose?

From the 1930s until the late 1960s, the Democratic Party was the majority party in terms of
voter affiliation. Following protests over the Vietnam War and the perception that the Demo-
cratic Party was moving to the left on critical issues including race relations, blue-collar Dem-
ocrats, primarily in the South and in ethnic enclaves in the Northeast and industrial Midwest,
began to vote for Republicans. While Southern Democratic voters dropped their Democratic
Party affiliation, they did not identify as Republicans. Data from the National Election Studies
(NES) show that between 1952 and 1992, identification with the Democratic Party decreased
from 59% to 47.5%, while identification with the Republican Party increased from 31.6% to
39.4%. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population that identified themselves as indepen-
dents tripled, from 6.5% to 19.6% (Levin-Waldman, 1997).

Today, both political parties have their own respective “bases.” The base of the modern Repub-
lican Party is considered to be very conservative, while the base of the Democratic Party is
considered to be very liberal. Both adhere more strictly to ideology than more centrist mem-
bers of their parties do. Modern conservative voters tend to favor smaller government, states’
rights, lower taxes, restrictions on privacy and abortion rights, school prayer, and traditional
family values. Modern liberals tend to favor more government programs and regulation to
achieve a more fair society, higher taxes on wealthier individuals and families, strict separa-
tion of church and state, rights to privacy and freedom of choice, and strong civil rights for
groups such as gays and lesbians.

Because political parties seek to mobilize voters to
support a particular candidate and win an election,
they often strive to be an open tent with a wide vari-
ety of views. But if moderates drop out to be inde-
pendents, both parties may be left with ideological
extremists.

It is not uncommon to identify the typical Democrat,
both the voter and the politician, as being liberal.
Similarly, the typical Republican is viewed as conser-
vative. The Democratic Party still has a base of low-
income and blue-collar groups with a high school
education. But the Democratic Party also has many
highly educated professionals, academics, and busi-
ness people who are more liberal on social issues. A
member of the Democratic base, for example, may
believe that abortion should be legal in all circum-
stances, including during the third trimester, past the
point of viability. The very liberal Democrat might
contend that an individual’s right to privacy, and to
control her body and reproduction, supersedes the
government’s right to protect a fetus.

Modern Republicans tend to be White, evangeli-
cal Protestant, conservative, and in favor of states’
rights. The Republican Party today is still home to the

Associated Press/John Bazemore

The Tea Party movement, which
emerged after President Obama’s
2008 election, has a conservative
Republican focus. It espouses less
government spending and pro-
tests government-mandated health
insurance.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 217 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

very wealthy and the old patrician classes, but it is also home to more working-class people,
including Catholics who are conservative on social issues, especially regarding the family. The
position of a member of the Republican base on abortion would likely be the opposite of that
of the liberal Democrat. The very conservative Republican might assert that abortion should
be prohibited under all circumstances, even in cases where it is necessary to save the life of
the mother, if, for example, his or her religious beliefs encourage this position.

The Republican Party, of late, has been influenced by the Tea Party movement, which emerged
following Barack Obama’s 2008 election. Tea Party members represent a conservative faction
of the party focusing on reducing government spending with the goal of reducing the national
debt and the federal budget deficit. The Tea Party has taken an active role in shaping Repub-
lican Party politics, particularly in its efforts protesting health care reform and in its support
of strongly conservative candidates.

Implement Policy Objectives

To the extent that parties represent specific policy agendas, they also identify the objectives
for policy implementation. Policy is technically implemented by the bureaucracy, but policy
objectives are established by political actors. These objectives often reflect the values of the
parties with which they are identified. By extension, then, parties implement policy objec-
tives. Consider for a moment that, if it is an official Democratic Party position to support
abortion rights and the Democratic preference would be for the new health care law to pay for
abortions, then the Democratic Party would seek to meet that objective by crafting or amend-
ing the new health care legislation so that it covers abortions. Meanwhile, as a traditional
position of the Republican Party is to oppose abortion, Republican members of Congress will
seek to block funding for abortions from the language of the new health care law so that when
the law is fully implemented, individuals with publicly funded insurance will not have cover-
age for abortion services.

Implementation of policy objectives ultimately requires that parties mobilize support. In
this vein, political parties organize dissent and opposition and institutionalize, channel, and
socialize conflict. When they are able to mobilize bias in favor of something, thereby making
it easier to implement, they effectively legitimize the decisions of government.

9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

Today’s Democrats and Republicans were not the first parties in the United States. In fact,
political parties have evolved throughout the nation’s history. Historians have found it help-
ful to divide the history of American parties into “party systems.” The “first” party system
lasted from the beginning of the republic until about 1824. The “second” party system, some-
times called the Jacksonian party system, lasted from 1824 until the eve of the Civil War.
The period of Reconstruction following the Civil War ushered in Democratic Party rule in
the South and Republican Party dominance at the national level. Beginning in the early 20th
century, the party system changed again due to an era of political reform. Then, from the
mid-1960s into the early 1970s, both political parties introduced reforms in their attempts

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 218 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

to attract more voters, but these also weakened party loyalty and increased the number of
political independents.

The First Party System (1770s–1824)

At the time of the nation’s founding, those supporting strong centralized authority were
known as the Federalists. Notably, Alexander Hamilton supported developing a strong com-
mercial and industrial economy. Thomas Jefferson, by contrast, favored small agricultural
economies.

The first party system emerged out of this dispute. Jefferson’s followers formed the nation’s
first political party, the Democratic-Republicans (the precursor to the modern Democratic
Party), in an effort to recapture the republican spirit (discussed in Chapter 1) that had ani-
mated the American Revolution. Meanwhile, Hamilton’s supporters maintained the Federalist
label. The intent of the new Democratic-Republicans was to paint Hamilton and his support-
ers as secret monarchists—people who wanted to reestablish the king in America—and the
intent of the Federalists was to paint Jefferson and his supporters as Anti-Federalists and
enemies of the Constitution. By the 1820s, the Democratic-Republicans had become so suc-
cessful that the Federalists had ceased to exist.

The Second Party System
(1824–1860)

The second party system began in
1824 with Andrew Jackson’s first
run for the presidency. In part, it
was a response to political partici-
pation being opened to the masses,
as property requirements for vot-
ing were abolished and more White
men were enfranchised.

“Jacksonian” democracy was a
grassroots movement intended to
mobilize the newly eligible elec-
torate, or those who are eligible to
vote. In the first party system, presi-
dential candidates were nominated
by caucuses made up of members of
Congress, in order for Congress to
have some control over who might
be president. These caucuses were
not popular among the presidential

candidates. In the Jacksonian system, caucuses were replaced by conventions, where party
delegates, who could be ordinary citizens, gathered to nominate a candidate.

Everett Collection/SuperStock

Political cartoon titled “Pilgrims’ Progress” that shows
Andrew Jackson leading the Democratic Party donkey
carrying James K. Polk and George Dallas to the 1844
presidential election. In the Jacksonian party system,
congressional caucuses were replaced by party conven-
tions, where some ordinary citizens were involved in
nominating presidential candidates.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 219 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

In 1831, the newly formed anti-Jackson National Republican Party nominated Henry Clay in
the first major party convention. The National Republican Party would eventually die out and
be replaced by the Whig Party, which was then replaced by the Republican Party that remains
in place today. The Democratic Party (which had dropped Republican from its name) held
a convention in 1832 that nominated Jackson for reelection and Martin Van Buren for vice
president. Van Buren would later be nominated for president by a Democratic convention in
1836. Jackson supporters voted Democratic, while the National Republicans then formed the
Whig Party.

Between 1836 and 1852, both the Whig and Democratic parties attempted to avoid the issues
of slavery and sectionalism, but by the middle of the 19th century, these matters became
unavoidable. The slavery issue shattered the old parties and caused new ones to emerge. The
modern Republicans, founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, became a major force that
began to dominate national politics in the years leading up to the Civil War.

The Third Party System (1860s–early 1900s)

With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Republican Party became established as a
major party. Those who supported the Union side in the Civil War became loyal Republicans
for generations, and, likewise, those who supported the Confederacy became loyal Demo-
crats. With few exceptions, Northern states tended to be solidly Republican, while Southern
states tended to be solidly Democratic.

The Republican Party was further strengthened in 1896. Running for the Democrats, Wil-
liam Jennings Bryan campaigned with strong populist rhetoric that alienated many voters
in Northeastern states while attracting voters in the South and the Midwest. This only rein-
forced the split between North and South that had been created by the Civil War. One conse-
quence of this split was that most states were, in effect, one-party states. The party that con-
trolled each state controlled who was nominated, which limited voters’ choices. State-level
electoral competition occurred within a single dominant party. Within each party, especially
the Republicans, there emerged two factions. The first faction, which could be said to reflect
the party-in-the-organization, consisted of party regulars, professional politicians, those who
were preoccupied with building the party machinery, developing party loyalty, and obtaining
patronage jobs for themselves and loyal followers. The second faction sought to do away with
patronage and weaken the power of what are known as the “political machines.”

Parties Under Reform (1900s–1960s)

Beginning in the early 20th century, Progressive reformers sought to weaken the influence of
political parties and in some cases to abolish them altogether. The first major issue was to
confront party control of the nomination process by machine bosses. Political machines were
disciplined organizations in which a single boss or small group could command the support
of individual voters and businesses (who were often campaign workers), who in turn could
expect to be rewarded for their efforts. The power of the machine lay in the ability of the
workers to get out the vote on Election Day. Machine bosses, especially in large cities, owned
construction companies and would ge tcontracts to build public works. Following the model

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 220 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

of the old spoils system, these bosses selected nominees who would serve the interests of the
machine. Naturally, this lent itself to corruption..

The machines provided pathways
of upward socioeconomic mobility
for ethnic minorities, such as Irish
and Italian immigrants. They also
offered a social welfare framework
when economic transformations
were causing dislocations and mas-
sive poverty while the government
did not provide welfare services.
For example, machine bosses com-
monly appeared at wakes to offer
assistance to widows and children
of the deceased. At a minimum, this
assistance might pay for funeral
expenses, but it could also cover
the rent and pay for food for a short
time. Progressive reformers who
were part of the educated social
elite were effectively excluded from
the machine party system.

For the educated elite to regain leadership, the rules of the game had to change. Progressives
supported primary elections to weaken the stranglehold of the machine bosses, as voters
could choose their own party nominees rather than having party bosses choose for them.
Reformers also sought local-level nonpartisan elections and strict voter registration require-
ments to reduce voter fraud. Finally, they sought to establish civil service systems to eliminate
the patronage system altogether.

These reforms, however, were slow in coming. Some states, such as California and Wisconsin,
were more successful than others. Over the years, more states adopted primary elections. As
late as 1960, only eight states held presidential primaries. This meant that presidential can-
didates, even as late as 1968, could bypass primary election states altogether and secure the
party nomination by negotiating with state party chairs.

The Decline of Parties (1970s–present)

The decline of the political parties really has more to do with the party-in-the-electorate than
within the party-in-the-organization and in government. Ironically, party decline has its roots
in the late-1960s and early-1970s reform efforts to increase party bases. Several events con-
verged to foster the need for reform. First, growing opposition to the Vietnam War led Sena-
tor Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota to challenge President Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic
Party nomination in 1968. Shortly after McCarthy entered the race, Senator Robert Kennedy
of New York, the brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, did too. Both McCarthy and Ken-
nedy sought to win the Democratic nomination through the states that had instituted prima-
ries. After Kennedy declared his candidacy, Johnson announced on March 31, 1968 that he

Irving Underhill, 1914

In New York City, machine bosses used to meet and
divide up public contracts in the Tammany Hall club-
house, which over time came to symbolize the corrup-
tion of machine party politics.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 221 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.2 Evolution of the American Political Parties

would not seek reelection. Johnson’s withdrawal paved the way for Vice President Hubert
Humphrey to enter the race, but Humphrey had no intention of entering any primary con-
tests, in part because he had a late start. So while McCarthy and Kennedy battled it out in
primaries, Humphrey negotiated with state party chairs and secured delegates.

Kennedy won the California primary in early June and looked likely to win the party nomina-
tion, but on the night of that primary victory he was assassinated. Humphrey, having never
entered a primary, had the nomination wrapped up going into the Democratic convention in
Chicago, but there was a pall cast over the gathering by protestors and violence in the streets
outside. In the general election, Kennedy and McCarthy supporters refused to support Hum-
phrey, in part because he would not disavow his earlier support for the Vietnam War and,
more significantly, because they believed that he had stolen the nomination. The result was a
split Democratic Party, which contributed to Republican Richard Nixon’s election in what was
otherwise a close race.

The 1968 election appeared to be
a watershed event for several rea-
sons. Some believed that it was the
beginning of an emerging Repub-
lican Party majority. Democrats
believed they had lost the election
because the party had been split
during the primary season. Close
election results implied that had
the party not been fractured, it
might have won the election.

The 1968 election also saw the
independent candidacy of George
Wallace, the Democratic segrega-
tionist governor of Alabama, who
was able to capitalize on White
anger in the South over civil rights.
The effect of Wallace’s candidacy
was to peel Democratic voters away
from Humphrey. Nixon also took
away Democratic voters, but for

different reasons. Nixon ran on a platform of law and order and ending the Vietnam War.
For many blue-collar workers and social conservatives, the violence of the 1968 convention,
which was broadcast on national television, fueled a perception that the Democrats no longer
represented their interests. In this vein, the 1968 election marked a major turning point in
the nation’s cultural wars.

Democratic Party activists convened multiple commissions in their attempt to unify the party
on the assumption that the fracture was due largely to the nominating process. The first com-
mission, the McGovern-Fraser Commission, chaired by Senator George McGovern of South
Dakota and Representative Donald Fraser of Minnesota, recommended that all states adopt

Associated Press

Riots outside the 1968 Democratic Convention were
indicative of the Democratic Party split over the Viet-
nam War. Vice President and presidential candidate
Hubert Humphrey backed the war.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 222 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multi-Party System

either primary elections or party caucuses. They argued that this approach would democra-
tize the nominating process and remove it from the influence of state party chairs. They also
recommended making the party more inclusive by selecting more women and minorities as
convention delegates.

In many cases, state legislatures had to pass new laws to hold primaries. As states adopted
these reforms, the result was that anybody could enter primaries without necessarily repre-
senting the parties’ traditional bases. Another result was that the nominating conventions
were to become little more than pep rallies.

Between 1968 and 1992, with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, the country
did not elect a Democratic president. Part of the reason may have been a perception that the
party had moved too far to the left, which was one consequence of its losing control of the
nominating process.

9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multi-Party System

The American political system is characterized by a two-party system, while the typical par-
liamentary system includes multiple parties represented in the legislature. There have been
two main parties in the United States since they emerged in the late 18th century. Several
attempts over time to form third parties have never really succeeded. Why has this been the
case?

Why the United States Has a Two-Party System

The principal reason the United States has a two-party system is that it has single-member
congressional districts—each voter gets one vote for a given office. Getting elected requires
a plurality of votes. In the 1950s, French sociologist Maurice Duverger (1964) noted, in what
has come to be known as Duverger’s law, that a plurality election system tends to favor two-
party systems. In other words, the candidate who wins the office is the one who receives the
most votes. In practical terms, this means that if in District 2 Joan, George, and Danielle run
for office and Danielle gets 49% of the vote, George gets 35%, and Joan gets 16%, Danielle is
the winner.

This is very different from a parliamentary system, where there is proportional represen-
tation, which means that voters can vote for several candidates to represent the province in
which they live. As an example, if Province A will be represented by 10 people out of 20 people
running, each party understands that the number of seats it takes in Parliament for this prov-
ince will be in proportion to the percentage of votes that it receives. If the Liberal Party receives
30% of the vote, the Conservative Party receives 20% of the vote, the Labor Party receives 40%
of the vote, the Consumer Party receives 7% of the vote, and the Green Party receives 3% of the
vote, the results will look as shown in Table 9.1.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 223 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multi-Party System

Table 9.1: Example of proportional representation

Party Percentage of the vote Number of seats in Parliament

Liberal 30 3

Conservative 20 2

Labor 40 4

Consumer 7 1

Green 3 0

Total 100 10

Because more than one person can represent the district, there is room for more than the
two strongest parties. The weakest parties can survive by achieving a minimum threshold,
such as receiving at least 10% of the vote, to secure at least one seat. A party receiving 10%
in a single-member district system like the United States would not secure representation in
office, and in the long term that party could not survive.

Broker Party Model

Two-party systems tend to be examples of broker party models because their primary pur-
pose is to win elections. The issues on which the party campaigns are based on what will
attract the most votes. As the preferences of the voters change, so too do “planks” in the
party platform. The party platform outlines the official positions of the political party, and
the term planks refers to the components of that platform. Because Americans tend to vote
for personality more than platform, the candidate who runs for office shapes the position of
the party platform. Whoever appeals most to the voters in a primary election gets to repre-
sent the party in the general election. In the broker party model, the party acts as a medium
for voters to express their preferences for particular candidates. While the party is non-
ideological in the broker party model, this is not to say that ideology does not play a role in
the selection of candidates, especially during primary campaigns. Rather, ideology is a tool
that can be used to rally support among voters to help secure a nomination.

Responsible Party Model

The responsible party model functions in both parliamentary systems, such as Great Britain,
and in single-member winner-take-all systems, such as the United States, although it is more
common in parliamentary systems, where issues and candidates are secondary to parties.
Platform planks tend not to change according to changing voter preferences; rather, voter
preference affects whether the party gains or loses votes. This means that parties are more
ideological in the responsible party model compared with the broker party model.

In the responsible party model, when people contribute money, they contribute to parties.
The candidates who run on behalf of the party are chosen by party leaders, not primary elec-
tions. A candidate is merely a spokesperson for the party. Usually the person who would, for
example, be prime minister, is the leader of the party, and the only way that person became

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 224 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section

9.4 Interest Groups

party leader was by working the way up the ranks and demonstrating loyalty to the party and
its policy positions. Officeholders who challenge the party leadership or buck party ideology
are generally displaced from the ballot in the next election. In the responsible party model,
then, party discipline tends to be tight. Political parties can be more ideological because there
are more of them. Parties would rather lose an election than compromise on principles. But
even a strongly ideological party is still likely to have seats, even if there are fewer of them.

9.4 Interest Groups

As with political parties, the Framers assumed that interest groups, or organizations focused
on a single issue, would naturally form because people had the liberty to freely associate;
however, as with political parties, the Framers did not have a positive view of interest groups
because they were primarily factions of self-interest. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison
defined factions as

a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the
whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or
of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community. (1787, para. 3)

Insofar as interest groups would be factions, they would seek to pursue the interests of the
group first, even if they were contrary to the larger public interest.

Today, there are two dominant
views of interest groups. One
holds that interest groups reflect a
dynamic democratic process built
on pluralism. Of the multitude of
interests within society, some work
together while others work against
one another. Classical pluralism
argues that interest groups use their
resources to exert influence in gov-
ernment, while an alternative view
suggests that interest groups dis-
tort the democratic process because
they succeed in having their inter-
ests trump those of the public.

The Role
of Interest Groups

Many interest groups focus on single issues. People who join interest groups such as the
National Rifle Association (NRA) or the Sierra Club do so because of their concern over a spe-
cific policy area. The NRA is concerned with the rights of people to bear arms, while the Sierra
Club focuses on matters that affect the environment.

Interest groups such as the National Rifle Association
(NRA) have proliferated as political parties have weak-
ened. The same individualism that brought about the
demise of political parties appears to strengthen inter-
est groups.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 225 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.4 Interest Groups

Interest groups pursue their goals by making policy-related appeals to government. They
seek to influence elections through political action committees (PACs), interest groups’
financial arms. PACs raise money and contribute to campaigns. Donations are most often
directed at incumbents, regardless of party, because incumbents have a high reelection rate.
Interest groups act strategically when they give money to incumbents who will likely be
reelected. The NRA, for instance, will contribute to whoever has a record of voting against gun
control.

Interest groups also seek to influence
public policy through lobbying. Lob-
byists, who represent interest groups
in their efforts to shape public policy,
meet with elected representatives and
attempt to influence their votes on par-
ticular issues. Lobbyists explain why
supporting their position is important
to the interest group’s members whom
the elected officials represent. One
tactic that lobbyists use is to impress
upon legislators that they represent
large numbers of people who vote.

Difference Between Interest
Groups and Political Parties

The principal difference between interest groups and political parties is that interest groups
tend to be single issue while political parties address a wide array of issues. Additionally, a
political party tends to be a more heterogeneous group, with activists who often take the
same position on core party issues but may have different opinions on others. A political
party seeks to win elections for its candidates. An interest group seeks to gain support for
its cause. Anyone can be a party member by registering with that party for the purposes of
voting. But interest group members pay membership dues in order to join the group. Political
parties often act like big tents that seek to attract many people with different points of view,
while interest groups seek to attract only those who agree with their cause.

Madison’s Dilemma

James Madison argued against factions because they sought to place their own interests over
the public interest. But factions were also the inevitable byproduct of liberty. The ultimate
cure for factions would, of course, be to eliminate them by legal means, but the cure would be
worse than the disease. The only solution to this dilemma, then, would be to allow for so many
factions that the relative power of each would be diluted. The more interest groups there are,
the less influence each one has.

Interest groups represent the diversity of American society and speak to the issue of plural-
ism whereby different people get involved with different issues at different times. The U.S.

Associated Press/Chris Miller

Lobbyists from different interest groups wait to see
members of Congress on Capitol Hill. The job of a
lobbyist is to present information and arguments to
legislators for the purposes of securing their sup-
port on specific issues.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 226 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.4 Interest Groups

Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to protect individualism. Pluralism is indi-
vidualism in its collective form. Because the United States is a large and diverse nation, inter-
est groups have become an essential tool for individuals to express themselves and have their
voices heard by governmental officials.

Madison’s dilemma also suggested
that one interest group might have
too much power. Economist John Ken-
neth Galbraith (1993) argued that
interest groups would ultimately be
checked by what he termed counter-
vailing forces. In the face of one pow-
erful interest group, several smaller
ones would come together in a coali-
tion, and they would balance out the
power of the larger group. Consistent
with Madison’s notion that the effects
of factions can be controlled by hav-
ing more factions, the more interest
groups there are operating in the sys-

tem, the more countervailing forces will exist. This is an instance of the marketplace working
to curb the excesses of interest groups.

Rationality and Logic of Collective Action

An interest group is a voluntary organization, and many people who sympathize with it may
derive benefits without having to bear the costs of membership. For example, an environmen-
tal interest group may petition the federal government to pass regulations that will reduce
automobile emissions. The environmental group’s PAC may donate money to the congressio-
nal campaigns of incumbents who have voted for pro-environmental regulations in the past,
while the environmental group’s lobbyists may lobby both Democratic and Republican mem-
bers of Congress to support legislation to reduce automobile emissions. If Congress passes
the legislation and the president signs it, one result will be cleaner air that all people will
benefit from, including persons who never joined the interest group along with those who
may have opposed the regulation out of concern that it would cause an increase in the cost
of automobiles. When individuals do not bear the costs of interest group membership, yet
derive the benefits of that group’s work, it is called the free rider problem. Logic would sug-
gest that individuals have little incentive to join interest groups because they can be free rid-
ers. However, if everybody were to assume that they could be free riders, then interest groups
would be challenged in recruiting members. As a consequence, individuals acting rationally
by being free riders can cause collective irrationality because the consequence of their inac-
tion is the absence of a strong and large interest group to advocate for their interests.

If its benefits are so readily available to free riders, why would anybody join the environmen-
tal interest group? One key reason that individuals would continue to join is because of asym-
metric information, in that individuals will not know what everyone else is doing. Those
supporting auto emission reductions do not know for certain that they will fare just as well if

Associated Press/The Green Bay Press-Gazette/H. Marc Larson

Interest groups can be viewed as reflecting healthy
democratic expression. They represent the diversity
of views in American society.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 227 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.4 Interest Groups

they opt to be free riders. And collective action achieves greater results than acting alone
does. This, after all, is the purpose of joining an interest group: to demonstrate that there is a
constituency supporting a particular issue.

Interest groups have also found practi-
cal ways around the free rider barrier
by offering benefits to members. As an
example, AARP offers its members dis-
counts on a variety of items, including
insurance policies and travel packages.
The NRA offers gun safety courses, as
well as discounts on hotels and insur-
ance policies. As a result, individuals
may see some practical benefit to join-
ing. People may also join interest groups
for the opportunity to socialize with
others on matters of common interest.

Impact of Interest Groups
on Democracy

Political scientist Theodore Lowi (2009)
argued that, as government took on
more responsibilities, Congress would delegate authority for policy implementation to the execu-
tive branch. The inevitable result would be a significant increase in interest groups. Indeed,
not only have interest groups emerged to lobby Congress for specific programs as the nature
and number of government responsibilities have increased, but they have also lobbied the
executive for contracts to deliver services.

Lowi also concluded that a government founded on liberal principles, such as the United
States, cannot prioritize values. Lowi’s conclusion is based on the notion that, on a philosoph-
ical level, each person’s conception of the good is just as valid as any other. To treat everyone
equally means that someone arguing for food for the hungry will not get preference over
someone arguing for corporate subsidies. The old constitutional system, as Lowi referred to
it, would not extend beyond its limited function. Once government found itself responding to
new crises, delegating authority, and dealing with multitudes of interest groups, it would give
priority to the cause with the largest and most powerful interest group behind it. If corporate
subsidies are backed by a powerful interest group, they have a higher order of importance
than feeding the hungry does, even if it turns out that most citizens disagree with these priori-
ties. The end result is that interest groups distort democracy because they do not represent
the people equally. Rather, government is more responsive to larger and more active interest
groups. Not everyone agrees with this position. Political scientist Robert Dahl (1961) has sug-
gested that even if interest groups represent different groups on different issues, the effect is
pluralism in action.

Associated Press/Robert Durell

The purpose of joining an interest group is to dem-
onstrate that there is a constituency supporting a
particular issue and acting collectively to achieve
greater results than acting alone would.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 228 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.5 The Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

9.5 The Challenge of Interest Groups
to Constitutional Representation

Madison’s dilemma and the corresponding concept of countervailing forces assume that com-
petition among interests produces balance and compromise. Yet it is not clear that interest
groups represent the broader public. As an example, the NRA might claim to speak for mil-
lions of Americans when it opposes gun control. But we do not really know that these mil-
lions of Americans, who might believe they have the right to own guns for hunting, target
practice, and personal protection, would oppose laws making it more difficult for criminals
or the mentally ill to acquire one.

Legislators might believe that an interest group speaks for more than its actual membership
suggests because of its perceived power. Further, interest groups may not be representative
because their membership may have a decidedly upper-class bias. For instance, many envi-
ronmental interest group members come from more educated and affluent backgrounds and
claim that they speak for millions more across education and income groups who are not
dues-paying members.

Money in Politics

Many argue that the greatest challenge that interest groups pose to democracy is that they
often enable those with the most money to enjoy the loudest voice. The PACs that collect
money for interest groups channel those donations into specific campaigns. Table 9.2 out-
lines the maximum amounts that individuals and groups can contribute to PACs. There are
different limits based on the type of donor and recipient. Because members of Congress have
to raise huge sums of money to be elected and reelected, they tend to be beholden to those
who contribute money to their campaigns compared with those who do not contribute. This
circumstance has led to the charge that, through their contributions, PACs effectively direct
policymaking.

Congressional incumbents and candidates understand that an interest group with a well-
funded PAC may direct resources into efforts to defeat someone who opposes their inter-
ests. In response, interest groups may decide to run advocacy ads in an attempt to cause
their opponents to be defeated by candidates who are more sympathetic to their cause. An
advocacy ad might run independently of a candidate’s official campaign. Interest groups may
spend as much as they want on independent expenditures, which are monies spent without
coordinating with any candidate.

Typical citizens who are not interest group members who otherwise support a cause may
believe that members of Congress are not really representing their interests because of the
role of money in politics. Some argue money in politics poses a challenge to constitutional
representation because those contributing more money to congressional campaigns may
buy more influence. (Table 9.3 highlights the top 20 financial contributors in the 2013–2014
election cycle.) In a constitutional democracy, members of Congress should represent all the
people and not just those with money.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 229 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Section 9.5 The Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

Table 9.2: Contribution limits 2015–2016

RECIPIENTS

DONORS
Candidate
committee PAC1

State/district/
local party
committee

National party
committee

Individual $2,700*
per election

$5,000 per year $10,000
per year
(combined)

$33,400*
per year

Candidate committee $2,000
per election

$5,000 per year

Unlimited
transfers

PAC: Multicandidate

$5,000
per election

$5,000 per year $5,000 per year
(combined)

$15,000
per year

PAC: Nonmulticandidate $2,700
per election

$5,000 per year $10,000
per year
(combined)
$33,400*
per year

State/district/local
party committee

$5,000
per election

$5,000 per year

Unlimited transfers
National party
committee

$5,000
per election
$5,000 per year

*Indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years.
1“PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees and not “super PACs.”
Adapted from “Contribution Limits for 2015–2016 Federal Elections by Federal Election Commission,” by Federal Election
Commission, 2015 (http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516 ).

Interest Groups and Free Speech

The first law limiting the role of corporations in political campaigns was enacted in 1907. The
Tillman Act prohibited national corporations from contributing to national political campaigns.
It was not until the 1970s that Congress enacted additional campaign finance regulations. The
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was enacted in 1971 and amended in 1974. Among
other regulations, FECA limited the amount of money that candidates could contribute to their
own campaigns on the grounds that contributions from individuals should be limited even if
those individuals contributing were the candidates themselves. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo that limiting the amount of money that candidates
could contribute to their own campaigns violated First Amendment free speech protections.

Congress attempted again to regulate campaign money with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (or “McCain-Feingold,” the names of the two Senate co-sponsors), which restricted
the amount of money that organizations such as corporations, labor unions, and other interest
groups could contribute to federal campaigns. But in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission that these restrictions violated free speech guarantees
because organizations have the right, under the First Amendment, to express themselves in the
political arena. On one level, if interest groups can spend unlimited sums of money on behalf of
particular candidates, then bigger and richer interest groups would appear to have more power
and influence. But on another level, in terms of countervailing forces, the Supreme Court

Table 9.3: Top 20 contributors in 2013–2014 election cycle

Rank Organization
Total
contributions

To Democrats
and Liberals

To
Republicans
and
Conservatives

Percent to
Democrats
and Liberals

Percent to
Republicans
and
Conservatives

1 Fahr LLC $75,279, 259 $75,279,259 $0 100% 0%

2 ActBlue $68,026,527 $67,956,039 $33,675 100% 0%

3 National
Education Assn

$29,908,739 $29,072,307 $209,975 99% 1%

4 Bloomberg LP $28,708,538 $10,692,165 $524,900 95% 5%

5 NextGen Climate
Action

$24,574,615 $24,574,615 $0 100% 0%

6 Service
Employees
International Union

$23,629,082 $23,489,082 $0 100% 0%

7 American
Federation of
Teachers

$19,689,548 $19,633,548 $51,000 100% 0%

8 Carpenters &
Joiners Union

$17,308,189 $16,590,939 $717,250 96% 4%

9 National Assn of
Realtors

$14,976,234 $2,355,029 $2,549,050 48% 52%

10 Elliott Management $14,199,672 $7,450 $14,192,222 0% 100%

11 Senate
Majority PAC

$12,035,679 $12,035,679 $0 100% 0%

12 American Fedn
of St/Cnty/Munic
Employees

$11,329,129 $11,172,879 $12,250 100% 0%

13 Renaissance
Technologies

$11,002,149 $1,276,500 $9,723,049 12% 88%

14 Koch Industries $10,800,085 $49,500 $10,831,085 1% 100%

15 Plumbers/
Pipefitters Union

$10,330,522 $9,029,767 $426,300 96% 5%

16 United Food & Com-
mercial
Workers Union

$10,274,606 $10,206,006 $23,600 100% 0%

17 Laborers Union $9,873,158 $8,159,703 $523,455 94% 6%

18 Democratic
Governors Assn

$9,690,362 $8,926,362 $0 100% 0%

19 Newsweb Corp $9,659,350 $9,259,350 $250,000 97% 3%

20 Intl Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers

$9,633,438 $9,454,098 $96,340 99% 1%

Used with permission of the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org)

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 230 3/24/16 1:45 PM

http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516

Section 9.5 The Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation
Interest Groups and Free Speech
The first law limiting the role of corporations in political campaigns was enacted in 1907. The
Tillman Act prohibited national corporations from contributing to national political campaigns.
It was not until the 1970s that Congress enacted additional campaign finance regulations. The
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was enacted in 1971 and amended in 1974. Among
other regulations, FECA limited the amount of money that candidates could contribute to their
own campaigns on the grounds that contributions from individuals should be limited even if
those individuals contributing were the candidates themselves. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo that limiting the amount of money that candidates
could contribute to their own campaigns violated First Amendment free speech protections.
Congress attempted again to regulate campaign money with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (or “McCain-Feingold,” the names of the two Senate co-sponsors), which restricted
the amount of money that organizations such as corporations, labor unions, and other interest
groups could contribute to federal campaigns. But in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission that these restrictions violated free speech guarantees
because organizations have the right, under the First Amendment, to express themselves in the
political arena. On one level, if interest groups can spend unlimited sums of money on behalf of
particular candidates, then bigger and richer interest groups would appear to have more power
and influence. But on another level, in terms of countervailing forces, the Supreme Court
Table 9.3: Top 20 contributors in 2013–2014 election cycle
Rank Organization
Total
contributions
To Democrats
and Liberals
To
Republicans
and
Conservatives
Percent to
Democrats
and Liberals
Percent to
Republicans
and
Conservatives
1 Fahr LLC $75,279, 259 $75,279,259 $0 100% 0%
2 ActBlue $68,026,527 $67,956,039 $33,675 100% 0%
3 National
Education Assn
$29,908,739 $29,072,307 $209,975 99% 1%
4 Bloomberg LP $28,708,538 $10,692,165 $524,900 95% 5%
5 NextGen Climate
Action
$24,574,615 $24,574,615 $0 100% 0%
6 Service
Employees
International Union
$23,629,082 $23,489,082 $0 100% 0%
7 American
Federation of
Teachers
$19,689,548 $19,633,548 $51,000 100% 0%
8 Carpenters &
Joiners Union
$17,308,189 $16,590,939 $717,250 96% 4%
9 National Assn of
Realtors
$14,976,234 $2,355,029 $2,549,050 48% 52%
10 Elliott Management $14,199,672 $7,450 $14,192,222 0% 100%
11 Senate
Majority PAC
$12,035,679 $12,035,679 $0 100% 0%
12 American Fedn
of St/Cnty/Munic
Employees
$11,329,129 $11,172,879 $12,250 100% 0%
13 Renaissance
Technologies
$11,002,149 $1,276,500 $9,723,049 12% 88%
14 Koch Industries $10,800,085 $49,500 $10,831,085 1% 100%
15 Plumbers/
Pipefitters Union
$10,330,522 $9,029,767 $426,300 96% 5%
16 United Food & Com-
mercial
Workers Union
$10,274,606 $10,206,006 $23,600 100% 0%
17 Laborers Union $9,873,158 $8,159,703 $523,455 94% 6%
18 Democratic
Governors Assn
$9,690,362 $8,926,362 $0 100% 0%
19 Newsweb Corp $9,659,350 $9,259,350 $250,000 97% 3%
20 Intl Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
$9,633,438 $9,454,098 $96,340 99% 1%
Used with permission of the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org)

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 231 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

implied in the Citizens United decision that individuals are free to join interest groups, which
can in turn attempt to raise as much money as they choose and contribute as much as they
want to the candidate who supports their cause. This would appear to be democracy in action.

One key consequence of the Citizens
United decision is the emergence of
“super PACs.” Super PACs are regis-
tered federal political committees that
may not contribute to candidates or
parties but may make unlimited inde-
pendent expenditures. Super PACs are
exempt from the restrictions imposed
on other organizations such as corpo-
rations and labor unions. The role of
super PACs in presidential elections
has been significant. For example, in
2012, more than 1,300 groups orga-
nized as super PACs, which together
reported total receipts of almost
$830 million. The best-funded super
PAC in 2012 was “Restore Our Future,”
which supported Republican nomi-
nee Mitt Romney. Restore Our Future

raised $154 million in the 2011–2012 presidential election cycle, of which $142 million was
spent on independent expenditures.

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
Political parties and interest groups are key features in American politics. Both form as a
byproduct of individuals exercising First Amendment liberties, which include speech, press,
peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government. The Framers took a dim view of interest
groups and political parties because they considered them to be factions that would pursue
their self-interest at the expense of the public interest.

Political parties differ from interest groups in that political parties focus on multiple issues
while interest groups often represent single issues. Political parties exist to win elections and
get out the vote as well as to operate the government. Interest groups attempt to influence
elections and shape public policy.

The principal reason that the U.S. government functions using a broker party model is that the
United States is organized around a two-party system, which is the result of single-member
district-based elections. In the broker party model, candidates who win a plurality (less than
a majority but more than any other candidate) of votes win the election. Parties in the United
States have evolved through different periods, usually in response to changes in the elector-
ate. Parties have experienced decline in large part because of the individualism that under-
pins American values.

“Ready for Hillary,” which sports its own bus, is one
example of a super PAC. Like individuals, super PACs
have the right to exercise free speech. This means
that super PACs may fund campaign ads that sup-
port or oppose candidates.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 232 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

Interest groups give individuals voice and opportunities to participate in politics. As Madison
observed, the more interest groups there are, the more self-regulating they will be through
the effects of countervailing forces. Still, interest groups may be problematic because of the
role of money in politics and the relationship between PACs and members of Congress.

Key Ideas to Remember

• The founders knew that both political parties and interest groups were likely to form
as a result of individuals having the liberty to associate with like-minded people;
however, they disapproved of both because they believed they would operate as fac-
tions focused on their self-interest over the public good.

• Political parties in the United States perform a variety of functions, but their primary
function is to mobilize voters so that their candidates will win political office.

• The United States is primarily a broker party model, whereby the goal for parties
is to win elections. The broker party model is in contrast to the responsible party
model, whereby the primary goal is implementing policy proposals. Elections are
secondary to that goal.

• The American party system has evolved throughout history. The first party system
emerged as factions in Congress. The second party system was a mass movement in
response to growing numbers of voters. Subsequent party systems have sought to
appeal to increasingly more voters in efforts to be competitive in a two-party system.

• Interest groups differ from political parties in that they are single-issue organiza-
tions while political parties focus on multiple issues.

• Interest groups seek to influence who is elected and the policies that are adopted.
• Although interest groups may be viewed as narrow-minded factions, their presence

in American politics speaks to the pluralism of American society, which contributes
to a vibrant democratic system.

• Interest groups might distort democracy in that those who contribute more money
through their financial arms—PACs and super PACs—have greater influence than
individuals and less well-funded PACs do. The presence of interest groups is viewed
as a legitimate form of free speech.

Questions to Consider

1. What are the functions of political parties in the United States?
2. Why is 1968 considered a watershed year for American political parties?
3. What are the primary differences between the American two-party system and the

multi-party systems found in many European countries?
4. How do interest groups differ from political parties?
5. How does Madison’s dilemma help us to understand interest groups as a system of

countervailing forces?
6. Why might one join an interest group?
7. What is the role of money in politics?
8. Do interest groups distort the democratic process? Why or why not?

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 233 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

Key Terms

advocacy ads Advertisements run by inter-
est groups for or against candidates, inde-
pendent of a candidate’s official campaign.

asymmetric information Imperfect and
uneven information.

countervailing forces When smaller inter-
est groups form coalitions to balance out the
power of bigger and more powerful interest
groups.

dealignment When individuals abandon
their party memberships and seek to be
unaffiliated with political parties.

Democratic-Republicans A political party
founded in 1796 by followers of Thomas Jef-
ferson in opposition to the Federalist follow-
ers of John Adams; the precursor of today’s
Democratic Party.

Duverger’s Law The idea that single-
member districts will tend toward two-party
political systems.

electorate Those who are eligible to vote.

franchise The right to vote.

free rider Someone who derives the ben-
efits of an organization without bearing the
costs associated with joining it.

independents Voters who are not affiliated
with any political party.

interest groups Organizations focused on a
single issue.

lobbyist Someone seeking to influence a
politician or public official on an issue.

machine bosses Leaders of political orga-
nizations who were able to deliver votes in
exchange for services.

National Republican Party A political
party founded in 1831 in opposition to
Andrew Jackson; replaced by the Whig party
and, later, the Republican Party.

one-party states States in which there is, in
effect, only one party operating.

party caucuses Party-affiliated subgroups
in Congress that pursue their interests
through the legislative process.

party-in-the-electorate Political party
made up of voters who affiliate with the
party.

party-in-the-government Public officials
in either Congress or the executive branch
who are identified with a particular political
party.

party-in-the-organization Activists in a
party who get people out to vote, set the
party platform, or nominate candidates.

party platform The official positions of the
political party on which a candidate runs for
office.

pluralism The presence of many types of
individuals, groups, and interests.

political action committees (PACs) The
financial arms of interest groups.

political machines Disciplined political
organizations in which a single boss or small
group commands the support of individuals
and businesses.

political parties Organizations of like-
minded members that seek to influence
public policy and provide a venue to oppose
other policy positions.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 234 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Summary and Resources

proportional representation The concept
that voters can vote for several candidates
and the makeup of the representative body
will reflect the proportions in which they
voted.

ranking member A person from the minor-
ity party who is effectively vice chair of a
committee in Congress.

Republicans A political party founded in
1854 by anti-slavery activists and still func-
tional in American politics.

Further Reading
Aldrich, J. H. (2011). Why parties? A second look. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bartels, L. M. (2010). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Berry, J. (2008). Interest group society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Berry, J. M. (2015). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton University Press.

Duverger, M. (1964). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Galbraith, J. K. (1993). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.

Kirkpatrick, E. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system: A report of the Committee on Political Par-
ties. American Political Science Review, Suppl. 2, 44(3).

Lowi, T. J. (2009). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States (40th anniversary ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

McCormick, R. L. (1988). The party period and public policy: American politics from the age of Jackson to the Pro-
gressive Era. Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1977). Party government. New York, NY and Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 235 3/24/16 1:45 PM

fin82797_09_c09_211-236.indd 236 3/24/16 1:45 PM

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Individual Rights and the Obligations of Government ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order