THE EVOLUTION OF U.S. POLITICAL PARTIES
Great Quote from 1927 "Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
Source: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from: The tyranny of the two-party system,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
BACKGROUND
Most people are probably aware that the majority of U.S. states require nomination by primary election. This started in the big cities in the late 1800's. One of the reasons this was done originally was to limit the ability of immigrants and the urban poor from using the right of association effectively in politics. At the time the stated desire was to "Break the Political Machine!" or"Destroy the Political Bosses!" Of course another name for "machine"is a private political organization, and "political bosses" included the elected leaders of those private member based political organizations.
By requiring, ( as opposed to allowing ) political parties to nominate candidates by public primaries, the state can eliminate the effective power of party organizations. Political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over the candidates that run under the parties name!
A voter in a primary election is voting for a single candidate not a state or national political party. The fact that they have chosen to run under a specific political label means very little. It's important to remember that one elected politician can't pass a law! Heck - One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
In the past a political party was a formal group with a constitution. It was not limited to a single election district. It's members could, ( directly or indirectly ) write a party platform that political candidates would be required to agree to - if they wished to run under the party's ballot label.
NOTE: It is my understanding that in most; if not all, other democratic nations - this is still the case!
A modern "party" candidate is just an individual that competes in a single election district. By registering with the state as a member of the party of their choice, ( just like any voter who wishes to vote in primary elections ) they may choose to run under labels such as Republican, or Democrat, or any other party that has achieved similar ballot status. Personally, I would not view them as members of any political party, in either the traditional or international sense. There is no organization that stands behind such labels.
NOTE: Ballot access laws vary from state to state in the U.S. and a handful of states vary significantly from my characterization.
WHY SHOULD THE VOTERS CARE ?
The first reason has already been mentioned. One elected politician can't pass a law or even get a bill out of committee. A single political candidate cannot promise "If you elect me I will pass this law " A "real" political party CAN realistically make such a statement! It's true that the political party may renege on it's political promises, but the same thing can be said of individual politicians.
Possibly a more important benefit of "real" political parties is their ability to facilitate political deals between different interests in society. How would you like to live in a society whose members can't make deals with one another? A "real" political party can become successful by creating a coalition of many different interests. It's a difficult thing to do. One group's political desires may interfere with many other group's political desires. However; if you can do it, you almost certainly will win political power. Any political party in a two-party system would love to stitch together a gigantic and loyal coalition of many different interests. However in the U.S., the lack of an enforceable party platform limits much of any relationship between the total vote and the actual political reward. The voters cannot use the right of association effectively in politics.
It's true that political parties often try and be all things to all people. The party platforms of "real" political parties are often as vague as a U.S. politicians stump speech! However; the voters can't even blame "fake" political parties since they don't exist! Who are you going to blame? When political parties exist, then their members can define what they stand for, and they will be held accountable by the voters if they don't. Our "fake" political party system tends to reward politically dishonest or misleading rhetoric more than a system with an enforceable party platform.
Once the public organizing influence of member based political parties was removed, it would be natural to assume that the behind the scenes organizing influence of wealth would increase. As a political science book I read in the 70's said (paraphrasing) ; "Political parties in the U.S. are probably unique in having few other functions than raising money for politicians."
Jack
Attempts at Party Platforms
The Democrat's 100 Hours Plan http://tinyurl.com/5kmmu5
The Republican's Contract with America http://tinyurl.com/5bkkd3