Perhaps before labeling people, you should read from this "lazy author's"
work in the area of American Political Development:
Samuel Kernell and Michael P. McDonald. 1999. "Political Strategy and the
Transformation of the Post Office from Patronage to Service." American
Journal of Political Science 43(3): 792-811.
It's about congressional elections at the end of the 1800s and we explore
rather deeply the role of Populist candidates and Populist candidates that
fused with the major parties by running under a combined label. In the
article, we use heavily the Martis atlas, and develop a novel method of
exploring congressional behavior by merging data from them with information
in the congressional record.
But the Populist movement and other minor party movements withered around
the beginning of the 20th century with the adoption of the direct primary,
the rise in prominence of the national government over state governments in
policy making, the expansion of the electorate to include women, and a
seeming nationalization of the major political parties. And for Richard's
argument, the adoption of the secret ballot during this period was often
accompanied by increased restrictions on ballot access. I know of a few
scholars revisiting Burnham's work on the importance of the 1896 election
(myself among them) to the development of a new party system in American
politics. Something interesting happened during this time period to the
parties and the electorate.
I think the political culture in the United States has sufficiently changed
since a century ago that we can talk safely about presidential elections as
the primary source for the viability of modern minor parties. Today's
presidential minor party candidates win a greater share of the vote than
their minor party congressional candidate counterparts, a fact that strikes
me as counter-intuitive. I will grant that the Libertarians have been quite
successful in recent elections in contesting congressional elections, though
their vote shares still remain small relative to the robust minor party
candidates that were winning seats in the 1800s.
------------
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-
law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:24 AM
To: richard@shepardlawoffice.com; Michael McDonald; election-
law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Minor party success in US Congress elections 1828-1944
Minor parties elected members of the US House in all
elections 1828 through 1944 (except for 1904 and
1908).
This history is not well known because so few
reference books include data about congressional
elections. Lazy authors find it easier to just
regurgitate presidential election data.
See Kenneth C. Martis' Historical Atlas of US
Congressional Elections, which did meticulous work on
identifying the party affiliation of all members of
congress, starting with 1789.
----------
The presence of geographically compact parties
supports multiparty systems
in other counties that use single-member districts.
These parties are often
organized along cultural, linguistic, religious, and
racial lines. I've
sometimes mused that a viable third party in the
U.S. could come from
minority-majority districts, but for many practical
reasons I doubt that
will happen. So, America does not have
geographically compact minor parties
that can legitimately contest single member,
plurality win districts.
Without overhauling the electoral system, minor
party candidates in the
United States are fated to fare poorly in elections.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com