POLS 605: Political Parties
Spring 2017
Monday, 12:30-3:00
DuSable 464
Dr. Matt Streb
Office: Zulauf Hall 402
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
Office Hours: Monday, 8:30-10:00, 3:15-4:45 or by appointment
Course Description: Scholars have long debated the relevance and strength of
American political parties. In fact, few areas of political science have received as much
attention. With the increasing polarization among Democratic and Republican elites, and
the debates over whether the general public is indeed polarized, this subject has become
even timelier.
This seminar will introduce you to some of the “classic” works on political parties
as well as some recent, important contributions to the literature. Although the founders
were skeptical of political parties, political scientists have argued that they are essential in
a democracy. E.E. Schattschneider went so far as to write that “modern democracy is
unthinkable save in terms of parties.” Political scientists are generally in agreement over
the importance of political parties, but there is considerable disagreement over the
nonnormative question of how strong American political parties are and the normative
question of how strong political parties should be.
We will spend much of our time answering nonnormative questions regarding
party strength. It is important to note, however, that neither the readings we will cover in
this course nor the topics addressed are comprehensive. Indeed, because of time
constraints, we will pay little attention to important questions regarding comparative
political parties, third parties, and divided government. Still, the seminar will prepare the
PhD students for their comprehensive exams and will help the masters’ students develop
potential starred papers.
Grading: Students will receive three grades over the course of the semester:
Research Paper (50%): Each student is required to write an original research paper on a
topic related to political parties (that receives my approval). In the paper, students should
develop and test a hypothesis. The paper is not a research design or a literature review.
The goal is to have the student create a paper that is suitable for presentation at a regional
or national political science conference or that could be accepted as a department
masters’ thesis. As a result, students will give a formal presentation of their papers
during the final two class periods. The paper will be discussed in greater detail in class.
Students must have their research question approved by me by February 6th.
Students should set a time to meet with me before the 6th to discuss ideas for the papers.
On the 6th, students should turn in an abstract that includes the research question and a
preliminary hypothesis or hypotheses. Students do not need to wait until the 6th to get
their paper topic approved. In fact, I encourage students to have their topics approved
before the 6th to give them more time to write the paper.
Students will be required to turn in a literature review on March 6th and a brief
paper explaining the data and methods used in the paper on March 20th. Failure to hand
in any of the assignments on time will result in an automatic failure on the paper,
which is tantamount to failing the course. The paper is due May 1st. All assignments
should be sent to me via email. To earn a passing grade in the course, the paper must be
completed. However, students enrolled in the course under an audit option are exempt.
Weekly Memos (30%): Students are required to write a one-page single-spaced reaction
paper to the readings for 10 of the 12 weeks. Students are to highlight arguments that
they found most interesting, make general overall comments about the arguments or
analysis in the readings, and ask questions about areas in which they are confused.
Papers are due to me via e-mail by midnight the day of class. Any student who turns in
fewer than 10 memos will automatically fail the class. Memos will be graded based on
0-3 points. A three-point paper will raise intriguing questions, provide insightful
comments, and integrate concepts analyzed in more than one of the readings. Students
enrolled in the course under an audit option are exempt.
Participation (20%): For the most part, this class will be conducted in a seminar format.
Therefore, it is imperative that students actively participate in class. Students are
expected to contribute comments about the readings and questions about the material.
This class depends greatly on quality participation in order for you to get the most out of
it. All required readings for a particular week are to be completed by everyone before
arriving in class; and each member of the class should be prepared to summarize, react to,
and draw from the readings in depth. Also, your research presentation will be part of
your participation grade (although you will not be given a grade for the presentation).
In general, relevant in-class participation will be evaluated according to the
following scale, with plus and minus grades being possible.
A=regular and thoughtful participation
B=occasional and thoughtful participation
C=regular attendance, but little or no participation
Students who miss more than two classes will fail the class (unless the absence is
approved by the professor), although students are not expected to miss any classes
barring a family emergency or major illness.
Course Policies:
1. Students with Disabilities: Northern Illinois University is committed to providing an
accessible educational environment in collaboration with the Disability Resource Center.
Any student requiring an academic accommodation due to a disability should let his or
her faculty member know as soon as possible. Students who need academic
accommodations based on the impact of a disability will be encouraged to contact the
Disability Resource Center if they have not done so already. The Disability Resource
Center is located in the 4th floor of the Health Services Building, and can be reached at
815-753-1303 [v], 815-753-3000 [TTY] or email at [email protected].
2. Late Assignments: I will not accept late weekly memos. If I do not receive the memo
via email by midnight on the day of class, if will count as one of the two weekly memos
that you have decided not to write. Students who miss more than three weekly memos
(in other words, they write fewer than 10 memos) will receive a course grade of “F” as
opposed to an incomplete. A research paper submitted after the due date will be
penalized by a deduction of ten points (out of a possible 50) per day. Since students will
have had several weeks to write their papers, this standard will be waived only in extreme
circumstances.
3. Incomplete Requests: Such petitions will be granted only in extraordinary
circumstances. The professor reserves the right to ask for documentation to verify the
problem preventing completion of the course by the normal deadlines. If the student does
not present documentation from a university office or official, the matter will be left to
the professor’s discretion.
4. Academic Dishonesty: In preparing for their work and meeting the requirements of
this course, members of this seminar are expected to adhere to all the rules, regulations,
and standards set forth by the Department of Political Science, Graduate School,
Northern Illinois University, and the scholarly community. This statement encompasses
intentional and unintentional plagiarism; cheating on examinations; using, purchasing, or
stealing others’ work; misusing library materials, and so forth. Failure to honor these
rules, regulations, and standards could result in a failing course grade and/or suspension
or expulsion from the university.
Required Texts:
Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides:
Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and
Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
LaRaja, Raymond J., and Brian F. Schaffner. 2015. Campaign Finance and Political
Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and
Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Masket, Seth E. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control
Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
These books are available at the NIU and VCB bookstores. Students are strongly
encouraged to visit websites to find much cheaper, used versions of these books. The
library has a few of these books in electronic format and several of the books can be
bought as e-books. The remainder of the readings will be placed on Blackboard are
available through J-stor or online, or can be copied from journals in the library. When on
campus, you can access articles by going to http://www.ulib.niu.edu/FIND/journals.cfm.
Grading Scale (in points):
93-100
A
90-92.9
83-87.4
B
80-82.9
70-77.4
C
60-69.9
ABD
87.5-89.9
B+
77.5-79.9
C+
Less than 60 F
Course Outline and Readings:
NOTE: Readings should be completed for the day in which they are assigned. It will be
helpful to read the articles in the order in which they are listed. (B) means the reading is
available on Blackboard.
Jan 23
Introduction to the Course
The Role and Structure of Political Parties in the United States
Jan 30
What are parties and why are they important?
Aldrich, chapters 1-5, 9
Masket, Seth E. 2016. The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail
and How they Weaken Democracy. New York, Oxford University Press, chapters
1-2, 8. (B)
The Party Organization
Feb 6
The Party Organization and Party Activists
Gibson, James L., Cornelius P. Cotter, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1985.
“Whiter Local Parties?” American Journal of Political Science 29: 139-160.
Frendreis, John P., James L. Gibson, and Laura L. Vertz. 1990. “The Electoral
Relevance of Local Party Organizations.” American Political Science Review 84:
225-235.
Weilhouwer, Peter W., and Brad Lockerbie. 1994. “Party Contacting and Political
Participation, 1952-1990.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 211-229.
Hassell, Hans J. G. 2016. “Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in
Nominations for the US Senate.” The Journal of Politics 78: 75-87.
Kousser, Thad, Scott Lucas, Seth Masket, and Eric McGhee. 2015. “Kingmakers or
Cheerleaders? Party Power and the Causal Effects of Endorsements.” Political
Research Quarterly 68: 443-456.
Herrnson, Paul S. 2009. “The Role of Party Organizations, Party-Connected
Committees, and Party Allies in Elections.” Journal of Politics 71: 107-1224.
Desmarais, Bruce A, Raymond J. LaRaja, and Michael S. Kowal. 2015. “The Fates of
Challengers in U.S. House Elections: The Role of Extended Party Networks in
Supporting Candidates and Shaping Electoral Outcomes.” American Journal of
Political Science 59: 194-211.
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Jan E. Leighley. 1993. “Party Ideology, Organization, and
Competitiveness as Mobilizing Forces in Gubernatorial Elections.” American
Journal of Political Science 37: 1158-1178.
Aldrich, chapter 8 (skim).
Feb 13
The Party Organization and Party Activists, cont.
Masket, all
Feb 20
The Party Organization and the Presidential Primary Nomination
Cohen, et al., all
Steger, Wayne P. 2016. “Conditional Arbiters: The Limits of Political Party Influence in
Presidential Nominations.” PS 49: 709-715.
The Party-in-the-Electorate
Feb 27
The Theoretical Foundations of Party Identification
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960.
The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapters 2 (skim),
6, 7. (B)
Green, Palmquist, and Schickler, Chapters 1-2, 4.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chapter 5. (B)
Settle, Jaime, Christopher T. Dawes, and James H. Fowler. 2009. “The Heritability of
Partisan Attachment.” Political Research Quarterly 62: 601-613.
Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, and Conor M. Dowling. 2012.
“Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification.” Political
Behavior 34: 653-688.
Clifford, Scott. Forthcoming. “Individual Differences in Group Loyalty Predict Partisan
Strength.” Political Behavior doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9367-3.
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “’I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan
Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science
59: 128-145.
Aldrich, chapter 6 (skim)
Mar 6
Partisan sorting
Levendusky, all
Mar 13
No class. Spring Break
Mar 20
The relationship between party identification and ideology/Issue
ownership
Abromowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2006. “Exploring the Bases of Partisanship
in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology.” Political Research
Quarterly 59: 175-187.
Goren, Paul. 2005. “Party Identification and Core Political Values.” American Journal
of Political Science 49: 881-896.
Highton, Benjamin, and Cindy D. Kam. 2011 “The Long-term Dynamics of Partisanship
and Issue Orientations.” Journal of Politics 73: 202-215.
Wright, Gerald C., and Nathaniel Birkhead. 2014. “The Macro Soft of the State
Electorates.” Political Research Quarterly 67: 426-439.
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case
Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825-50.
Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait
Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 908-923.
Mar 27
Realignment
Key, V.O., Jr. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17: 3-18.
Key, V.O., Jr. 1959. “Secular Realignment and the Party System.” Journal of Politics
21: 198-210.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1981. “Issue Evolution, Population,
Replacement, and Normal Partisan Change.” American Political Science Review
75: 107-118.
Abramowitz, Alan. 1994. “Issue Evolution Revisited: Racial Attitudes and Partisanship
in the U.S. Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 1-24.
Hayes, Danny, and Seth C. McKee. 2008. “Toward a One-Party South?” American
Politics Research 36: 3-32.
Hajnal, Zoltan, and Michael Q. Rivera. 2014. “Immigration, Latinos, and White Partisan
Politics: The New Democratic Defection.” American Journal of Political Science
58: 773-789.
Ragusa, Jordan M., and Anthony Gaspar. 2016. “Where’s the Tea Party? An Examination
of the Tea Party’s Voting Behavior in the House of Representatives.” Political
Research Quarterly 69: 361-372.
Apr 3
The Resurgence of Party Identification
Keith, Bruce., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye,
and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter.
Berkeley: University of California Press, Chapter 5. (B)
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American
Journal of Political Science 44: 35-50.
Bafui, Joseph, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter.” Journal of
Politics 71: 1-24.
Hetherington, Marc. J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite
Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95: 619-631.
Brewer, Mark D. 2005. “The Rise of Partisanship and the Expansion of Partisan
Conflict within the American Electorate.” Political Research Quarterly 58: 219229.
Campbell, David E., John C. Green, Geoffrey C. Layman. 2011. “The Party Faithful:
Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party
Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 55: 42-58.
Apr 10
Political Parties as Heuristics and Schemas
Rahn, Wendy. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about
Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37:472-496.
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?”
Political Behavior 30: 139-160.
Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew Streb, and Gerald C. Wright. 2001. “Teams Without
Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” Political
Research Quarterly 54: 7-30.
Schaffner, Brian F. and Matthew J. Streb. 2002. “The Partisan Heuristic in Low
Information Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly 66: 559-81.
Bonneau, Chris W., and Damon M. Cann. 2015. “Party Identification and Vote Choice
in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections.” Political Behavior 37: 43-66.
Lau, Richard. R and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of
Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision-Making.” American Journal of
Political Science 45: 951-71.
Dancey, Logan, and Geoffrey Sheagley. 2012. “Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues
and Voter Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science 57: 312-325.
Parties-in-Government
Apr 17
The Party-in-Government
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23:
235-266.
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible
Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2 (B).
Rhode, David W. 2013. “Reflections on the Practice of Theorizing: Conditional Party
Government in the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Politics 75: 849-864.
Hall, Andrew B., and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 2014. “The Changing Value of Seniority in
the U.S. House: Conditional Party Government Revised.” Journal of Politics 76:
98-113.
Carson, Jamie L., Gregory Koger, Matthew J. Lebo, and Everett Young. 2010. “The
Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political
Science 54: 598-616.
Wright, Gerald C., and Brian F. Schaffner. 2002. “The Influence of Parties: Evidence
from the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 96: 367-380.
Masket, Seth, and Boris Shor. 2015. “Polarization without Parties: Term Limits and
Legislative Partisanship in Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature.” State Politics
and Policy Quarterly 15: 67-90.
Aldrich, Chapter 7 (skim).
Apr 24
Partisan Polarization and Campaign Finance Reform
LaRaja and Schaffner, all
May 1
Research Presentations
May 8
Research Presentations