Although all these authors see polarization, none do a good job fully explaining the causes of polarization. I think the problem is not party polarization, as these articles seem to think. The problem lies, in my mind, with the fact that there is no outlet for moderates of either side, and as moderate politicians are sidelined moderate voters become disengaged, further exasperating the problem.
With elections framed as a zero sum game in a majoritarian electoral system, the catch all parties, which we first learned about in Andolino and Blake, have become a necessity for politicians survival, but this restricts flexibility for the broad range of opinions on both parties to work together to find compromise. The use of two parties means that a wide range of opinions are stifled. McCarty says that on a liberal conservative scale, according to the median voter theorem, gridlock should not exist, but these two dimensions do not do the political, social, and economic beliefs of American justice. The electoral system and the institutions of the legislature and party system have reinforced the power of the parties.
Gerrymandering is one instance of how the system has continuously reinforced polarization. In order to gain further security for electoral seats, as McCarty mentions, redistricting has created more homogeneous districts, further reinforcing the polarization of parties. Even through Americans have extremely low approval ratings for Congress, and always want to "throw out the bums," they tend to like their own representatives, meaning there is little change.
These problems of overly homogeneous districts, disengaged moderates, and elections as a zero sum game, have defined our two party system to become polarized. How might polarization and gridlock differ between a two party system and multi-party system? Is gridlock a result of formal and informal institutions or matter of political culture?
Really good points, Kelly. You pointed out that polarization may be a function both of what is done to voters (gerrymandering) as well as what they do to themselves (continue voting in their own representatives perhaps against their own interests). Mann and Ornstein brought up another example of this that I found interesting. They said that people increasingly move based on ideology. They want to live near other people who have similar values and interests. I would suggest that we could add political ideology to Adolino and Blake’s list of “social cleavages” along with class, religion, language, etc. This seems to snowball though because if you are surrounded by people with like views, you are less likely to understand other perspectives and more likely to see them as oppositional. Is this just human nature that, if given control of where we live, most of us want to be around like-minded people? Of course, it works the other way too. Where we live shapes what we believe. I'm convinced that there are many causes of polarization, but this particular one wouldn't necessarily be affected by having multiple parties.
Really good points, Kelly. You pointed out that polarization may be a function both of what is done to voters (gerrymandering) as well as what they do to themselves (continue voting in their own representatives perhaps against their own interests). Mann and Ornstein brought up another example of this that I found interesting. They said that people increasingly move based on ideology. They want to live near other people who have similar values and interests. I would suggest that we could add political ideology to Adolino and Blake’s list of “social cleavages” along with class, religion, language, etc. This seems to snowball though because if you are surrounded by people with like views, you are less likely to understand other perspectives and more likely to see them as oppositional. Is this just human nature that, if given control of where we live, most of us want to be around like-minded people? Of course, it works the other way too. Where we live shapes what we believe. I'm convinced that there are many causes of polarization, but this particular one wouldn't necessarily be affected by having multiple parties.
Another polarization tool is the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is a persuasion tool intended to keep the supporters of one side of a debate from demanding or giving in to compromise. In the current gun debate the NRA is guilty of this line of reasoning. In a recent speech the head of the NRA stated, "He [President Obama] wants to keep all of those names in a massive federal registry. There's only two reasons for a federal list on gun owners: to either tax 'em or take 'em." His argument aims to instill fear of the government in those who are on the fence and reinforce the views of those who truly believe the government is out to disarm the American public. In his leap from background checks to taxation and public disarmament he fails to outline the necessary steps for such an outcome to occur. A slippery slope argument may seem reasonable but in the end it is only fiery rhetoric that discourages compromise and leaves no functional middle ground.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/LaPierre-No-universal-gun-registration/UPI-91851358977430/#ixzz2KVu3Jy00
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Another polarization tool is the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is a persuasion tool intended to keep the supporters of one side of a debate from demanding or giving in to compromise. In the current gun debate the NRA is guilty of this line of reasoning. In a recent speech the head of the NRA stated, "He [President Obama] wants to keep all of those names in a massive federal registry. There's only two reasons for a federal list on gun owners: to either tax 'em or take 'em." His argument aims to instill fear of the government in those who are on the fence and reinforce the views of those who truly believe the government is out to disarm the American public. In his leap from background checks to taxation and public disarmament he fails to outline the necessary steps for such an outcome to occur. A slippery slope argument may seem reasonable but in the end it is only fiery rhetoric that discourages compromise and leaves no functional middle ground.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/LaPierre-No-universal-gun-registration/UPI-91851358977430/#ixzz2KVu3Jy00
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Another polarization tool is the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is a persuasion tool intended to keep the supporters of one side of a debate from demanding or giving in to compromise. In the current gun debate the NRA is guilty of this line of reasoning. In a recent speech the head of the NRA stated, "He [President Obama] wants to keep all of those names in a massive federal registry. There's only two reasons for a federal list on gun owners: to either tax 'em or take 'em." His argument aims to instill fear of the government in those who are on the fence and reinforce the views of those who truly believe the government is out to disarm the American public. In his leap from background checks to taxation and public disarmament he fails to outline the necessary steps for such an outcome to occur. A slippery slope argument may seem reasonable but in the end it is only fiery rhetoric that discourages compromise and leaves no functional middle ground.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/LaPierre-No-universal-gun-registration/UPI-91851358977430/#ixzz2KVu3Jy00
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
The dual partisanship that exists in Congress is perpetuated with each election cycle and, as noted in comments above, encourages (or forces) voters to pick a side which may not fully represent their interests(e.g. the lesser of two evils). Thus, the effect on voters is not only a cause of polarization, but it is also a direct consequence reinforcing the cycle. Unfortunately, the domineering two-party system is capable of encouraging ignorant votes, for individuals may cast their votes based on generalized platforms since candidates must conform in order to be successful through either party, sometimes "changing their mind" on issues half way through a campaign. As a consequence, voters may support candidates who generally lean either conservative or liberal, but they may also strongly disagree on a particular issue that a given voter is passionate about. Further, candidates or groups of representatives use the slippery slope tactic, not only to avoid compromise, but also to deter an issue by blaming another source. An example of this is given in one of this week's posts, where (in the midst of gun safety issues) Republicans claim video games are a bigger threat to safety than guns because they instill negative emotions, normalize aggressive behavior, and ultimately lead to violent acts. However, the effects of violent video games is an argument to be had another time; the present debate remains on gun control alone, not whether or not guns are more dangerous than video games. Nonetheless, it's an example of a political argument that, due to polarization, does not leave much room for moderating grounding.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-67-percent-of-republicans-think-video-games
I think that polarization is an issue that probably won’t be easily solved. From the McCarty reading “reforms involve the granting of significant power from the minority party to the majority party, they are unlikely to happen in such a polarized environment.” As for moving from a two-party system to a multi-party system I would think that it would be difficult with gerrymandering of districts. For a third party to win in one of these districts created for the sole purpose to have a polarized system would be difficult. In addition to being an unconventional party trying to gaining enough votes, from the John Sides video, individuals already have partisanship with one party or another. While, it is possible that there will be more cooperation between parties if there is more than two parties it will be difficult to get to that point with all the barriers faced with an additional party or more.