Why Democrats Lose (or Why Republicans Win)

*** Updated with a word of warning for Republicans who think this post holds good news for the GOP (see the end).


No matter how you measure party preference, Democrats have enjoyed a consistent lead for over 60 years. According to data from the American National Election Studies that lead has fluctuated, but remains significant.

Source: ANES

In 2008, Democrats led Republicans by 14 percentage points (when voters who lean toward one party or the other were included in the calculation). Even in years when Republicans won the presidency, including the Reagan landslide of 1984, Democrats enjoyed a voter preference advantage. Though not shown in the above chart, Democrats enjoyed similar advantages during midterm elections when they lost control of Congress or failed to retake control.

So why can't Democrats translate their clear advantage in voter preference into party victory? Aren't we a polarized nation where 90% or Democrats vote for Democrats and 90% of Republicans vote for Republicans? In short, no we're not. Though America's two political parties, and the party activists who set agendas are quite polarized, there is little evidence of polarization within the broader electorate (see my prior post on this).

As shown in Panel A of the following figure, in 1972 the ideological distribution of Democrats and Republicans was actually quite similar. Both parties were dominated by self-identified moderates – the Democratic distribution skewed slightly left and the Republican right.

On the 7-point ideology identification scale (with 1 representing extremely liberal and 7 extremely conservative, a score of 4 represented moderate) the mean score for non-activist Democrats was 3.88 compared to 4.59 for Republicans – a statistically significant difference.  By 1996, the Republican electorate had shifted significantly to the right (mean value of 5.13) and Democrats had shifted slightly, though significantly to the left (mean value of 3.69). The distribution observed in 2008 is very much similar to that of 1996 for both parties. By 1996 a clear divergence between the two party coalitions is evident, but it is driven almost entirely by the Republican party’s move to the right.

Source: ANES. Party activists were defined as those who attended a campaign meeting or rally AND contributed money to a candidate or campaign.

So there is element one of the polarization story - party polarization among the broader, non-activist electorate, has been driven by Republican rank and file voters shifting right while Democratic rank and file members essentially stood still.

But there's more the story and it's told in Panel B of the figure. In 1972, Democratic and Republican party activists differed significantly from non-activists, yet moderates were a sizable component of each group's activist base.

Interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean value of the Republican distribution for activists and non-activists in 1972. Among Democrats, however, the mean value of 2.89 for party activists was significantly to the left of non-activists. This pattern held through 2008.

Though the Republican party’s activist base has become more conservative, so has the party’s non-activist membership. In 2008 the mean score on the ideological scale for Republican activists was 5.50 – not significantly different from the 5.16 value for non-activists. Among Democrats, activists sported a mean value of 2.85 as compared to 3.64 for non-activist – a significant difference.

Since 1972, Republican party members – activists and non-activists alike – have become more conservative. Suggesting little disconnect between rank and file members of the party and its most committed members. Among Democrats, however, the shift to the left observed among party activists has resulted in a divide between more liberal activist members and more moderate rank and file members.

So there's element two of the polarization story. Republican activists and rank and file members moved right together. Democratic activists are moving left without their rank and file members.

These changes in the party’s coalitions offer further explanation for the Democratic party’s electoral difficulties.
 
As shown in a prior post, the American electorate is not polarized along ideological lines. Though there has been some evidence of a slight rightward shift since 1972. Party activists, however, are very polarized, with Democratic activists well to the left of center and Republican activists well to the right. At first glance, this suggests party activists out of step with their party’s respective coalitions. But this is clearly truer for Democrats than for Republicans. The Democratic party’s coalition has shifted only slightly to the left, but remains well anchored around a core group of moderates. Party activists, however, are decidedly left of center.

So there's element three of the polarization story - the American public has shifted somewhat to the right, so by staying put, the Democratic coalition has in effect moved to the left.

A substantial share of the Democratic party’s coalition finds itself ideologically situated between the extremes of partisan activists on the left and the right. Simply stated, a Democratic party agenda tailored to liberal party activists is more likely to alienate a much broader segment of the Democratic coalition than would a Republican party agenda tailored to conservatives.

There is a greater disconnect between activists and voters in the Democratic party. Democrats have more to lose, with regard to potential voters, by following activists to the left than do Republicans by following a lead to the right. Given this ideological disconnect, one would expect less partisan attachment or party loyalty among Democratic voters – a weakening of partisanship.

In a separate posting later this week I will show that Democratic partisans are in fact less loyal to the party over time and more likely to disagree with the party on key issues of party faith.

In short, Democrats lose because the folks who set the agenda for the party are more out of step with rank and file membership than are the folks who set the agenda for the Republican party. For Republicans, there is strength and ideological cohesion on the right. Republicans win because there is little difference between party activists and rank and file members. Among Democrats, however, strength comes not from the left but from the center - that's where the parties core group of rank and file voters are and when the party strays left many of those voters defect.

Update: But Republicans should not look to this post as good news for the GOP. At present, Republicans are able to win because so many Democrats occupy that middle ground between the extremes of the two activist elements - but the GOP has been moving right faster than the overall electorate and in the opposite direction of the non-activist Democrats. If the GOP continues to trek to the right they will reach a point where moderate Democrats no longer view the GOP as an acceptable alternative.

Those moderate Democrats may decide to support their own party or just stay home - either way the GOP would be left with it's smaller coalition of voters.

Perhaps more dangerous for the GOP, the Democratic party could moderate it's agenda and actively seek to close the gap between activists and non-activists. If Democrats can unify their coalition and consistently attract the broad middle of America's electorate the GOP is sunk and will return to the near minor party status they occupied between 1932 and 1964.

The data on party coalition ideology suggests that Democrats can move to the center and win, if Republicans move to the center they risk alienating a substantial portion of their electoral coalition.  So long as America remains a moderate nation, odds favor a re-emergent Democratic majority - but only if Democrats actively work to make it happen. The real question for Democrats is whether liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of it's moderate, non-activist voters. Current anger at President Obama, coming from the American left, suggest those activists are not quite ready.

The GOP has become the Gene Hackman Character from the Birdcage

I was watching The Birdcage on TV today (the 1996 remake of the french film La Cage Aux Folles). As I watched the Gene Hackman character I realized something funny and sad - his character was a caricature, an exaggeration, in 1996, but today the character plays like any number of GOP leaders or presidential candidates.

Watch this clip from the film dealing with gays in the military and prayer in schools and ask yourself - is there anything funny about Hackman's portrayal? 

Gays in the Military



The Birdcage
— MOVIECLIPS.com

It was funny in 1996 because it represented a fringe element of the Republican party - a party that had nominated George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole - Dole stood at the podium during his nominating convention and said:

The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view. But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.

What happened to the GOP? The Hackman caricature has become reality. Is there anything spoken by the Hackman character (then for shock value laughs) that is not today a standard part of a GOP candidate's stump speech?

Since the 1960s, the Democrats have become ever more beholden to leftwing interests and activists. But the political reality of being one of two parties in a right of center country has tempered the party's liberalism and resulted in a greater willingness to compromise and moderate. The GOP, however, has found considerable success via a strategy that targets very conservative base voters. At one time it may have been mere strategy, but those base voters now dominate the elected members of the party and truly set it's priorities.

It's a sad thing to see...

I think the GOP continues to win because most independent voters identify with the GOP on issues such as the size and scope of government, taxation, and, often, foreign policy. Meanwhile, social issue are less salient and independents have been able to tolerate the GOP's increasing social conservatism - but as the GOP moves ever more right in the face of a larger society that is becoming ever more tolerant it will become harder and harder for independents to turn a blind eye to the GOP on social issues.

With Democrats becoming more accommodating on issue such as taxation and spending cuts the party is positioning itself rather well to become the new home of those independent voters.  The great danger for the Democrats is that the party's liberal base will feel rejected and stop supporting the party. The liberal base, however, has never been quite as large as the conservative base - so the Democratic party can become America's moderate and dominant party even without liberal activists - and I think it's likely that it will.

We're Still Not Polarized...

In a New York Times story yesterday, reporter Jennifer Steinhauer told readers that in townhall meetings across the country members of Congress are not being told to compromise or find common ground, but rather to dig in, fight harder, and not compromise. Steinhauer was right to tell readers that these townhall meetings tend to be magnets for activists and the "most partisan and intransigent factions of both parties."

She's right and it's important to understand that these very vocal folks represent a distinct minority. According to data collected by the American National Election Studies, the most comprehensive database of Americans' political activities and beliefs, only 10% of the electorate attended a political meeting or rally in 2004 or 2008 - and these were presidential campaign years, so the that is probably the high watermark for attendance.

So 90% of the electorate does not attend these meetings and their voices are not heard by members of Congress. That would not matter if the 10% was representative of the absent 90% - but they are not. The American electorate is generally quite moderate, with a plurality (about 34%) describing themselves as pure moderates. Add in the folks who identify as only slightly liberal or conservative and you have 60% of Americans walking that middle road.

The folks who attend meetings and rallies are decidedly more ideological. In fact, the ideological distribution among those who attend meetings is nearly the inverse of those who do not. Fully 56% of meeting attendees come from the left and right wings of the ideological distribution - in recent election years they have tended to be more liberal than conservative, but with a Democratic President that has likely shifted somewhat.

Members of Congress are on recess and talking with constituents. Unfortunately, they are hearing a distorted message from party activists who despise compromise and celebrate partisan warfare. Meanwhile, the opinions of the vast majority of the electorate, a moderate electorate, are not being heard.

Want to stop the nonsense? Make sure you contact your member of Congress.Make your voice heard. In a recent post, I highlighted the fact that campaign volunteers and contributors tend to be far more partisan and ideological. So the folks who go to meetings, write checks, and knock on doors represent a very small, but very vocal, and ideologically committed slice of the electorate. Their level of commitment magnifies the influence of their small numbers.These folks are contributing to the poisonous nature of contemporary politics.

In a Democracy, even when it's a representative republic, larger numbers can defeat louder voices.

America is not Polarized, but the Parties Are, part 15...

Now that the battle over the Debt Ceiling is settled (at least until Congress comes back from recess) we are once again treated to the usual chorus of voices bemoaning how polarized America has become. As such, I feel compelled to once again dispell the myth that America is a polarized nation.

As I argued during the healthcare battle, after the Gabbie Giffords shooting, and prior to the 2010 midterms, Americans are not polarized (at least no more polarized than at any point in the last 40 years), but our two political parties are very polarized - dominated by ideological and issue activists who do not represent the beliefs of the larger electorate.

Since the 1960s and the end of the Democratic Party’s dominance of the New Deal Era, American politics has become far more competitive. Democrats lost their solid hold on the South and Republicans lost their hold on the North East. Only 7 states had divided government in 1954, in 2007 that number stood at 23 states. With few exceptions, either party has fair shot at winning statewide elections in most states. Control of Congress and the White House has bounced back and forth between the two parties. The parties have responded to this era of competition by becoming ever more partisan and polarized.

A recent study by political scientist Daniel Coffey determined that there is a direct and positive correlation between party competition and party ideology. As a state becomes more competitive between Republicans and Democrats the respective parties become ever more conservative and liberal. V.O. Key hinted at this in 1956 when he argued that competition would force parties to offer more distinct policies to voters in an effort to influence their choice. Additionally, as competition increases the parties come to rely more heavily, not on the mean, median, or moderate voter, but rather on the more committed and activist voter. This means liberal activists for Democrats and conservative activists for Republicans. This has the effect of pushing the parties ever farther to the extreme.

As the agendas of the two political parties became ever more divergent after the 1960s Americans began to "sort" more neatly into one party or the other, a phenomenon known as party sorting. As the Democratic Party became more liberal and the Republican Party more conservative, liberal Republicans left the party and became Democrats or Independents and conservative Democrats became Republicans or Independents. The parties polarized, the public did not.

In fact, there has been precious little change in the last 30 years with regard to the share of Americans who identify as Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal. Rather conservatives no longer feel comfortable in the Democratic Party and Liberals are no longer comfortable in the Republican Party - Moderates appear to be less comfortable with both parties and that explains why Independent voters have emerged as the fastest growing segment of the American electorate. As a result of this sorting, the Republican Party became more homogenously Conservative and the Democratic Party more homogenously Liberal. So the distribution of Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates within the the two parties has changed significantly while the distribution of Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates within  broader electorate has changed very little.

The electorate is no more polarized now than in 1970, 1980, or 1990 - but the parties are. So of course 90 percent of Republicans vote Republican and 90 percent of Democrats vote Democrat and Presidential approval correlates to party affiliation, and Democratic members of Congress have become more Liberal and Republican members of Congress more conservative. Meanwhile, Moderate voters tend to split their support between the parties, but also vote at lower levels - likely a result of feeling ill-represented by either party. All of this is a natural byproduct of party sorting, but party sorting is not the same as polarization.

Though some scholars (especially, but not limited to, Alan Abramowitz) have advanced the theory that this growing polarization among elected officials is in fact reflective of a polarized public, there is in fact little evidence that the mass public has become polarized. Rather the polarization has occurred among committed political activists and the interest groups they support – a relatively small share of the electorate.

This is evident in Figure One, panel A shows the self-identified ideological orientation of the general electorate at three points 1972, 1994, and 2008. Although the distribution has shifted over time, the distribution remains normal with most voters amassed in the center as Moderates. Panel B is limited to those members of the electorate who indicated that they had worked for a campaign and given money to a candidate – I define these voters as party activists. Among these activists, a clear bimodal distribution is evident with the peaks of the distribution to the left and the right of moderation.

According to political scientist Anthony Downs in a winner-take-all election system coupled with two dominant parties (as in the United States) the parties will adopt positions that are ideologically attractive to the greatest concentration of voters.

The distribution of the American electorate (in the broadest sense) is unimodal which, according to Downs, should promote more moderate parties as they compete for the median voter. But Downs’ theory further suggests that if the electorate was polarized into two distinct voting blocs, one left of center and one right of center, the parties would “diverge toward the extremes rather than converge on the center. Each gains more votes by moving toward a radical position than it loses in the center (p. 143).” Steven Hill writes "one of the defining characteristics of a winner-take-all system is that it promotes adversarial politics so that on a whole host of issues it is painfully obvious that the overriding agenda for both major parties is... to stake out positions vis-a-vis the other side."

In the 1960s Republicans exploited several emerging schisms in the ranks of the Democratic Party's coalition in order to become competitive - schisms revolving around national security, welfare spending, and policies with regard to race relations. The party defined itself by being what the Democratic Party was not. Over time both parties increasingly defined themselves by being the antithesis of the other party - this is why there can be no middle ground on isues ranging from abortion, entitlement spending, taxes, environmental regulation, healthcare reform - each party's identity is inextricably linked to being the mirror image of the other party.

This led to party sorting, internal partisan homogeneity, and the bimodal distribution of the engaged voters evident in Figure One. The distribution of the most engaged and activist elements of the electorate, those most likely to participate and vote in elections, is bimodal which has resulted in two polarized parties and the system now feeds off of that bimodal distribution. So long as the more Moderate members of the general electorate remain less engaged there is little incentive for either party to moderate and pursue Moderate voters; rather to do so would risk alienating more committed activist party members. So long as neither party moderates and pursues more Moderate members of the electorate there is little incentive for Moderate voters to become more engaged – a self-reinforcing cycle exists.

The increased electoral competition between the Democratic and Republican parties, in the current era, has had a significant impact on public opinion, partisanship, polarization, and the institutions of governance. As described by Congressional scholar Norm Orstein the present era is “an extended era of close partisan margins, which gave rise to high-stakes legislative politics and sharply reduced incentives for lawmakers to work across party lines to solve problems.”

The only hope for restoring moderation, compromise, and good government - for breaking the hold on the current system of partisan activists - is for the vast and unengaged middle to re-enter the game and wrest control from the ideologues. Simply chosing between the tweedle-dee Democrats and the tweedle-dum Republicans will not suffice. Rather the current party system must be brought down.

Talking Redistricting on Kojo Nnamdi on NPR

I was a guest on the Kojo Nnamdi show today discussing redistricting in the state. I'd like to thank Kojo for having me on the show.

Listen here

Maryland's Enters The Fight Over Redistricting in Maryland, Politics

We explore how this round of redistricting is likely to shape the balance of political power in Maryland.

Maryland is about as "blue" as a state can be. But it's about to be consumed by complicated fights over redistricting, even though the Democrats control all the important levers of power. We explore how race is shaping this year's round of redistricting in Maryland, and we hear from Republicans about their strategy going into the process.

Guests:

Andrew A. Green
Opinion Editor, The Baltimore Sun

Alex Mooney
Chairman, Maryland Republican Party

Aisha Braveboy
Member, Maryland House of Delegates (D-Prince George's County); Co-Chair, Maryland Legislative Black Caucus Redistricting Committee

Todd Eberly
Professor, Political Science, St. Mary's College of Maryland; Author, The FreeStater Blog

Franchot Makes A Smart Move for 2014

In an interesting statement at the Board of Public Works meeting, State Comptroller Peter Franchot said "We have become uniquely tied at the hip or joined at the hip to the federal government," and lawmakers need to rededicate Maryland toward "a business climate that inspires, promotes and rewards private-sector investment in Maryland."

In stark contrast to Governor Martin O'Malley's frequent lauding of Maryland's reliance on federal jobs Franchot further argued "We as a state simply can't allow ourselves to become complacent and allow the federal government to become the economic engine of first and last resort in Maryland."

Franchot's comments sound like something that might have been said by Republican Bob Ehrlich during the 2010 gubernatorial contest - Ehrlich lost the race by 14.5 percentage points, but I think these comments signal a wise strategic move by Franchot as he looks to the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

At present, there are likely to be at least three big names seeking the Democratic nomination, Attorney General Doug Gansler, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, and Franchot.

Odds favor a Democrat winning the general election, regardless of the Republican nominee, so winning the Democratic primary is just a doorway to the governorship.

If Franchot faces Gansler and Brown then embracing a moderate to conservative agenda will help him.

Gansler is an unabashed liberal, his advisory opinion on Maryland recognizing same-sex marriage, his environmental crusading, and his firm support of gun control would make it impossible for him to claim to be anything but a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Brown will undoubtedly lay an early claim to the significant African-American vote in the primary. African-Americans compose roughly a third of the Maryland population and are the most reliable Democratic voting bloc - yet the Democratic Party has never nominated and run an African-American candidate at the top of any statewide ticket. Brown is an accomplished legislator with an impressive resume and I believe that African-American voters would be quick to rally around his candidacy.

So between Gansler and Brown two of the most reliable segments of the Democratic primary voting population will be claimed - liberals and African-Americans. The only way for Franchot to be competitive is to target the folks who would be left out - white, moderate and conservative working class Democrats, of whom there are many in Maryland.

In a three-way race, if Gansler and Brown have split the base vote of the party, Franchot can emerge the victor with no more than 34% of the vote. It's a wise strategy, but also the only strategy available to him.

Only one thing could upend Franchot's approach - Jim Smith. Smith is the former county Executive from Baltimore County and a former judge. He is a moderate Democrat with a base of support in an important part of the state.

If Smith enters the race and Gansler and Brown split the base vote and Franchot and Smith split the moderate to conservative vote then anyone of them could become the nominee with no more that 26% of the vote.

But a four way race like that would likely divide the party. If one of the liberal candidates emerge then Republicans will have a fighting chance in the general election, but if Franchot or Smith win then the race is over - for Democrats to win the general election with a liberal candidate (against an acceptable GOP candidate) they need a unified party.

2014 seems so far away, but Franchot's comments remind us that it's closer than it seems.

America Needs a Declaration of Independents...

There is so much to love in Jeffrey Sachs all out attack on the colossal failings of America's two major political parties.

Every part of the budget debate in the U.S. is built on a tissue of willful deceit. Consider the Republican Party's double-mantra that the deficit results from "runaway spending" and that more tax cuts are the key to economic growth. Republicans claim that the budget deficit, around 10 percent of GDP, has been caused only by a rise in outlays. This is blatantly untrue. The deficit results roughly equally from a fall of tax revenues as a share of GDP and a rise of spending as a share of GDP... The Democrats of the White House and much of Congress have been less crude, but no less insidious, in their duplicity... at every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class. He refused to tax the banks and hedge funds properly on their outlandish profits; he refused to limit in a serious way the bankers' mega-bonuses even when the bonuses were financed by taxpayer bailouts; and he even refused to stand up against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December, though 60 percent of the electorate repeatedly and consistently demanded that the Bush tax cuts at the top should be ended. It's not hard to understand why. Obama and Democratic Party politicians rely on Wall Street and the super-rich for campaign contributions the same way that the Republicans rely on oil and coal. In America today, only the rich have political power.

Sachs concludes "America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline."

I do not disagree with Sachs' assessment. I for one am tired of hearing partisans defend their party while proclaiming that "the other side" is the unreasonable party. A review of recent columns by leading opinion leaders on the Left and the Right reveals little more than an exercise in finger pointing and self righteous indignation. From the Left you'll hear that the Republicans are "hostage takers" willing to risk fiscal ruin to protect America's wealthy. On the Right you'll hear that President Obama and Congressional Democrats refuse to accept significant spending cuts because to do so would be to admit that the modern progressive era is over, and failed.

The truth is America is being ill-served by both parties as they seek to appeal to ever more partisan and polarized bases.

Some, argue that the American electorate is polarized as the two parties simply reflect that polarization. But there is little to no evidence that the general public is polarized - at least any more polarized now than at any point in the last 30 years. Rather we live in a two party system and the parties have become ever more polarized and controlled by partisan fringes. Polarized parties create the illusion of a polarized public. Problem is, a winner-take-all, plurality rule, two-party system is supposed to promote the creation of two moderate parties.


In his seminal work, Economic Theory of Democracy, Anthony Downs wrote when the electorate is polarized "regardless of which party is in office, half the electorate always feels that the other half is imposing policies upon it that are strongly repugnant to it... In this situation, if one party keeps getting reelected, the disgruntled supporters of the other party will probably revolt; whereas if he two parties alternate in office, social chaos occurs, because government policy keeps changing from one extreme to the other."

One could look to that passage as prophetic, but what if Downs had it backward? What if polarized parties led to the polarized electorate? Extensive research by Fiorina shows us that the mass public has not become more polarized even as the members of the two parties have - especially the most engaged members.

A recent study by Daniel Coffey (in PS: Political Science and Politics) determined that there is a direct and positive correlation between party competition and party ideology. As a state becomes more competitive between Republicans and Democrats the respective parties become ever more conservative and liberal.

So as politics became more competitive through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s the parties responded by becoming ever more ideological. V. O. Key argued that competition would force parties to offer more distinct policies to voters in an effort to influence their choice.

As competition increased the parties came to rely more heavily not on the median voter in a unimodal distribution, but rather on the more committed and active voters on the left and right of the distribution.

As the agendas of the political parties became ever more divergent Americans began to "sort" more neatly into one party or the other - and more Americans began to identify as either pure Independents or only loosely associated with a party. As the agenda of the Democratic Party became more liberal and the Republican Party more conservative, liberal Republicans left the party and became Democrats or Independents and conservative Democrats became Republicans or Independents.

The parties polarized, the public did not. There has been precious little change in the last 30 years with regard to the share of Americans who identify as Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal. Rather conservatives no longer feel comfortable in the Democratic Party and Liberals are no longer comfortable in the Republican Party - Moderates appear to be less comfortable with both parties.

The electorate is no more polarized now than in 1970, 1980, or 1990 - but the parties are. So of course 90% of Republicans vote Republican and 90% of Democrats vote Democrat. Of course Presidential approval correlates to party affiliation, it's the natural byproduct of party sorting, but party sorting is not the same as polarization. Moderate voters tend to split their support and vote at lower levels.

So what we have is a modification to Downs. The distribution of the American electorate (in the broadest sense) is unimodal which should promote more moderate parties, but the distribution of the most engaged and activist elements of the electorate is bimodal which has resulted in two polarized parties.

Steven Hill (author of Fixing Elections: The Failure of Winner Take All Elections) writes "one of the defining characteristics of a winner-take-all system is that it promotes adversarial politics so that on a whole host of issues it is painfully obvious that the overriding agenda for both major parties is... to stake out positions vis-a-vis the other side."

In the 1960s Republicans exploited several emerging schisms in the ranks of the Democratic Party's coalition in order to become competitive - schisms revolving around national security, welfare spending, and policies with regard to race relations. The party defined itself by being what the Democratic Party was not. Over time the parties increasingly defined themselves by being the antithesis of the other party.

This led to party sorting, internal partisan homogeneity, and the bimodal distribution of the engaged voters and the system now feeds off of that bimodal distribution even as the broader mass electorate's distribution remains unimodal.

And such a system can be maintained so long as the respective bases maintain intensity and the strategies used to motivate base voters do not alienate more moderate voters who are often needed to swing an election given the near parity of each party's base.

But what happens when the strategies, rhetoric, and policies required to maintain base allegiance begin to alienate more moderate voters? If those voters simply stop voting it may not matter, but if they continue to vote it could be very disruptive as they seek an electoral outlet.

It would be reasonable for one party to moderate and absorb those moderate voters, but doing so risks losing their base. So instead both parties engage in what Jacobs and Shapiro (Politicians Dont' Pander) describe as "crafted talk" in which they use words that suggest moderation even as they pursue very partisan policies. But the pursuit of those policies will push the moderate voters away - and they only have one other choice, the opposition party.
It's possible, that as the base strategy accelerates one would expect to see more see-saw elections like 2006 and 2010. Such oscillations in partisan control of government contributes to the present era's dysfunction, but so long as the parties remain committed to a polarized, partisan base strategy it will remain a feature of the present era.

And that brings us back to Sachs. America does not need a third party; rather America needs two new parties. In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of voter instigated ballot initiatives, rising levels of voter discontent, see-saw election results like the 2006 and 2010 midterms.

The evidence suggest that the broader electorate is beginning to resist and push back against the current political system. Perhaps disaffected voters in the broader electorate are nearing a critical mass and may soon be able to break the hold on the system by the two parties.

Only time will tell, but the current political system which emerged from the turmoil and tumult of the 1960s, has not lasted longer than any recognized political era in American history. Of course, our two major parties control campaign fundraising laws, ballot access, voter registration laws, the drawing of Congressional districts, the manner in which electoral votes are awarded, and access to the public airways. It's a duopoly more damaging than any monopoly in American history.

The only way to break their hold is to mobilize the growing number of folks who feel alienated from both parties, the 40% of folks who don't vote and in presidential elections, and the 60% who don't vote in Congressional elections. It's time for a revolution... not like 1776, but rather the electoral revolutions of 1800, or 1828, or 1860, or 1932.... we need systemic transformation from below and we need it soon.

America needs a Declaration of Independents... a declaration that we will no longer allow America's future and prosperity to be held hostage to the narrow ideological pursuits of the Democratic and Republican parties and the ideologues who fund them.

Just how Democratic is Maryland? Not as Democratic as You Think, but Still Pretty Democratic

As a follow up to my endorsement of the Maryland GOP's proposed redistricting map I wanted to discuss what I referred to as the true political diversity of Maryland. It is often remarked that Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans in the state. This is quite true, the table below shows party registration numbers as of June.

As the table shows, Democrats hold a 56% to 26.6% registration advantage over Republicans. But the table shows two other important things often overlooked in a discussion of Maryland politics 1) though Democrats outnumber Republicans they still make up only 56% of all voters and 2) Independent or Unaffiliated voters make up a sizable chunk of the state's electorate.

Let's stay for moment with that 56% figure. As the majority party, it makes sense that Democrats would hold all or most (in fact all) statewide offices - Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, both U.S. Senators. But regional offices should be a bit more competitive - still the Democrats hold 6 of 8 seats in the state's Congressional delegation (75%), 98 of the 141 seats in the House of Delegates (70%), and  35 of the 47 seats in the state Senate (75%). This is a pretty impressive accomplishment for a party that lays claim to only 56% of voters.

There are two possible explanations for this impressive hold on offices within the state 1) Independent and Republican voters actually vote for Democrats or 2) Maryland's 8 Congressional and 47 legislative districts have been gerrymandered such that Democrats are able to outperform their actual voter registration advantage.

So how do those Independent and Unaffiliated voters vote? Below is a table with election results and voter turnout for a selection of Maryland elections dating back to 2004. Included are the 2004 and 2008 presidential election, the 2010 gubernatorial election, and the results form the 2010 election in Maryland's 2nd and 5th Congressional districts. Included are the total votes received by the Republican and Democratic candidate as well as the total votes cast by Democrats, Republicans, and Independent/Unaffiliated voters.

Almost immediately you see that we can throw out explanation 1 (that Independent and Republican voters vote for Democrats). In nearly every election included in the table (and in nearly every election in Maryland) the Democratic candidate receives a vote total either just above, or in some cases just below, the total number of Democrats who voted in the election.

But look at the tallies for Republican candidates, in each election the Republican candidate received substantially more votes than there were Republicans voting. In 2004, George W. Bush received 1.024 million votes, yet only 733,000 Republicans voted. In 2010, Bob Ehrlich received 776,000 votes when only 578,000 Republicans voted. By way of contrast, O'Malley received 1.044 million votes which was 29,000 votes fewer than the total number of Democrats who cast ballots. Even in Congressional districts, Republicans outperform their partisan turnout.

What's going on? Simple, Independent/Unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates, regardless of the office and regardless of turnout. To be fair, in every election some Republicans do vote Democrat and some Democrats do vote Republican (but most studies show that only abut 10% of voters cross party lines when voting). Republicans candidates in Maryland consistently outperform their share of registered voters casting ballots. In the 2004 presidential contest and the 2010 gubernatorial race I estimate that Republicans claimed the support nearly all Independent/Unaffiliated voters (in all likelihood Republicans actually won quite a few Democrats and O'Malley received more than 1.2% of Independents - but it all comes out in the wash). In 2004 68% of Independents turned out, but only 35% turned out in 2010 - yet they still broke for the Republican by similar margins.

2004 and 2010 may be poor examples. Bush was an incumbent president and Ehrlich a former governor. So I included the 2008 presidential election and two Congressional elections from 2010, each with an incumbent Democrat. Turn out by Independents in 2008 was similar to 2004 and turnout in the two Congressional districts was essentially the same as the 2010 statewide turnout. In the three elections covered Democrats outperformed Democratic turnout in 2 of the 3. In the Presidential election and in the 5th Congressional district race I estimate that Democrats carried 22% to 24% of the Independent vote. Republicans picked up between 59% and 70% of the Independent vote.

In Maryland, regardless of the election, Independent voters break heavily toward the GOP. This rather consistent support for GOP candidates suggests that Republicans actually claim a larger share of Maryland's voters than registration number suggest. Averaging the elections highlighted above (and placing a greater weight on higher turnout elections) suggests that Republicans receive about 77% of the Independent vote, Democrats about 6% and the remainder actually goes to third party candidates.

The table below shows an alternate breakdown of each party's effective partisan strength in the state if we were to reallocate Independent voters according actual election results.

Democrats gain very little and remain at 57% of the electorate, Republicans see there share of the electorate jump from 26.6% to 38.6% and true Independent voters dwindle (yes we are a lonely few).

So how do Democrats hold 75% of Congressional seats, 70% of the seats in the House of Delegates, and 75% of the seats in the state Senate?

It's called gerrymandering folks...

Gerrymandering is the process by which a political party draws district lines not to represent the interests of the people, but rather to represent the interests of the party. By drawing the 6th and 1st district such that registered Republican and Republican leaning Independent voters are packed into those districts the remaining districts contain more Democrats. Republicans in Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Harford county are sliced across multiple districts to dilute their influence and excess Democrats in Baltimore City, Prince Georges, and Montgomery county are spread across multiple districts to boost Democratic prospects.

The same process is applied to the state's legislative districts. What's up with 2C, 3A, 37A - easy, they each create Democratic districts in the midst of otherwise Republican areas (and before someone thinks to remind me that the state's legislative districts were "redrawn" by the courts, I would remind you that the changes made by the court were miniscule).

And this process is not unique to Maryland or to Democrats - one look at the map of Legislative and Congressional districts in Texas and it's easy to see why state Democrats fled the state in 2003 to try and stop the proposed map.

After my column supporting the Republican's proposed map was published I was accused of being a partisan out to boost the Republican party - this simply is not the case. I am among the 2.5% of truly Independent voters in Maryland (this was not always the case, I was once a very partisan fellow, but years of studying American politics made me realize the damage that hyperpartisanship has done to our system). I tend to be a pretty moderate person and I really dislike the ideologues that dominate both major parties. Above all, what I care about is a process that respects voters and the true political diversity of a state. When Democrats or Republicans abuse the process to boost their numbers the voters suffer, the concept of representation suffers.

My goal is not more Democrats or more Republicans, my goal is a state where the people are truly represented, not a state where one party can artificially create a partisan advantage simply by drawing lines... Maryland has been a leader in environmental legislation and health care reform, can we now be a leader in moving toward non-partisan redistricting? What a wonderful legacy that would be for Governor O'Malley.

Thank You Governor O'Malley

As expected, Governor O'Malley has announced his intentions to sponsor same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland.

I have been very critical of O'Malley and his lack of leadership on this issue during the 2011 legislative session. I also believe that the only reason he decided to support the bill was the active role played by Gov. Cuomo in New York when the state legislature legalized same sex marriage earlier this summer. I'll add that given the incredible success of the petition drive to place the Maryland DREAM Act on the ballot in 2012 the General Assembly may be hesitant to pass another bill that would most certainly trigger another petition drive and another ballot initiative - meaning that 2011 was really the year to get behind the bill.

But.... the bill has a far greater chance of passing with O'Malley's full and vocal support and given the controversy that this is likely to cause among Catholic and African-American religious leaders this represents a brave and bold decision by a governor who rarely takes political risks.

On behalf of all of us who are straight, but not narrow (minded) I say thank you Governor O'Malley for standing up for the simple, but essential concept of equality under the law. I stand with you and will certainly do whatever I can to support your legislation.

From O'Malley's Press Release:
"As a free and diverse people of many faiths, we choose to be governed under the law by certain fundamental principles or beliefs, among them “equal protection of the law” for every individual and the “free exercise” of religion without government intervention. In the 2012 legislative session, I will sponsor legislation that protects religious freedom and equality of marital rights under the law."

Gerrymandering is Bad, Regardless of Which Party Does It!

I want to thank the Washington Post for inviting me to write a column on redistricting for their Sunday edition. It was an opportunity for me to write about an issue that I care for a great deal. As I've been reading reader comments and e-mails I decided that I should follow up a bit on the issue and address (though indirectly) some of the reader comments.

I admit to not having much patience for dyed-in-the-wool partisans. Folks who think that their party is dedicated to goodness and light and that the opposition party is evil incarnate really need to wake-up to the reality that there is nothing inherently good or evil about the Democratic or Republican Party. Yet die hard Democrats are convinced that Republicans are out to control the country through any and all means and die hard Republicans are equally distrustful of Democrats.

Newsflash folks - the Democratic and Republican Parties share the same goal - the acquisition of power and influence within government. And both parties will used whatever legal means are available to them to acquire power. In states dominated by Democrats, like Maryland, Democrats use the redistricting process to game the system and boost party interests. Likewise, in a state like Texas, Republicans do the same.

A critique of Maryland's gerrymandered districts is not an attack on the Democratic party, it is an attack on the process. I endorsed the Republican map simply because it is a good map. Had the Kiwanis Club, or MaryPIRG, or the state Democratic Party presented the same, or a better proposal, I would have endorsed that map. But in this case, it was the Maryland GOP. That in no way suggests that I absolve the Republican Party of their equally egregious gerrymandering antics in other states.

Some folks told me that so long as redistricting is a partisan process and the GOP controls the process in states like Texas then it should be OK for Democrats to manipulate the process in states where they dominate. As a father, I've heard this argument many times except it goes "yea, but he started," "did not," did too." So I have little patience for an adult version of that childish justification being applied to something as important as representation in Congress.

A hand full of states, among them California and Iowa, have rejected partisan gerrymandering in favor of a non-partisan process. This is what I would I like to see in Maryland. I want to see more states follow the lead of Iowa and California and make this a non-partisan issue.

Of all the institutions of our national government, the House of Representatives was the one body most intended to embody democratic representation. No reasonable person could look at Maryland's 2nd, 3rd, or 4th districts and conclude that they were drawn to best represent the interests of the people. As Americans we should be outraged that the parties (Democrats and Republicans) manipulate something as sacred as representation in the manner that they do.

Gerrymandering subverts representation and subjugates the interests of the people to the interests of political parties. Perhaps that wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that America is home to two dominant parties - each dominated by partisan ideologues.

So let me summarize. I oppose gerrymandering. I don't care if it helps Democrats... I don't care if it helps Republicans... It's an abuse of process... It harms everyone... and some things, in fact most things, are far more important than party loyalty.

First Public Hearings on Redistricting Announced

Tell the Redistricting Task Force that Maryland's gerrymandered districts must be changed! Read my previous posts on redistricting in Maryland here and here.

Jeanne D. Hitchcock, Esq., chair of the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Committee (GRAC), today announced locations for the first 3 of 12 public hearings that will help inform the committee as it drafts a recommended plan for the State's Legislative and Congressional redistricting.

 

The hearings and start times will be:

• Saturday, July 23, 11 a.m., Hancock High School, School Auditorium, Hancock, Washington County
• Saturday, July 23, 2 p.m., Hood College, Rosenstock Hall, Hodson Auditorium, Frederick
• Monday, July 25, 7 p.m., Prince George's Community College, Rennie Forum, Largo, Prince George's County

Public hearings will start at the designated time and end following the last testimony of registered persons.

Information on future dates and locations will be posted here as soon as it is available.

A model redistricting plan from the Maryland GOP

The following post is from a column that I wrote for the Washington Post - the full text (with nice maps) can be veiwed at the Washington Post's Opinions Page.

Maryland is home to some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. But the decennial redistricting getting underway gives Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley and state leaders a chance to remake the partisan, unrepresentative districts created 10 years ago under Gov. Parris Glendening, another Democrat — districts that have harmed Democratic and unaffiliated voters as much as they have Republicans.

And the good news is officials don’t have to spend much time reviewing voter rolls and computer data to achieve this good-government outcome. All they have to do is adopt the plan offered by Maryland Republicans. Yes, you read that correctly.

That’s not the process that’s in the offing, of course. Instead, a task force created by O’Malley will redraw districts so that each contains roughly 721,000 people, a map which will then be sent to the General Assembly for its rubber stamp. O’Malley has promised to produce a map representative of Maryland’s diversity. Given the Democratic makeup of the task force, however, I suspect this will be a decidedly partisan affair (as it is in most states) dedicated to the electoral interests of O’Malley’s party.

It is important to consider how Maryland’s bizarre congressional districts came into existence. Before the 2001 redistricting, the state’s congressional delegation included four Democrats and four Republicans. That split was unacceptable to Glendening and state Democratic leaders, given their party’s sizable registration advantage, so they drew lines to dilute Republican counties and expand the reach of Democratic strongholds.

The goal was clear — elect more Democrats — and it was met. But there was a cost. Rather than respecting political diversity and natural community boundaries, districts were designed solely to maximize Democratic influence.

Counties were sliced and diced. The boundaries of the 1st and 2nd districts were altered to pack more Republicans into the 1st and more Democrats in the 2nd. The 8th District, mostly Montgomery County, was spread over three districts, with the more Republican areas shifted into the 6th District along with Western Maryland and much of northern Baltimore and Harford counties. To offset Republican voters elsewhere in Baltimore, Harford and Howard counties, the city of Baltimore’s residents were treated as spoils to be divided among the 2nd, 3rd and 7th districts. As a result, the unique urban interests of Democratic Baltimore City residents were diluted by the suburban demands of Baltimore, Harford and Howard.

Closer in to Washington, Prince George’s County was divided among the 4th, 5th and 8th districts. Montgomery was spread across the 4th, 6th and 8th. Again, this was done to maximize the impact of these Democratic bastions.

Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Harford counties were divided in ways that defy all reason — except one: diluting the GOP vote. Harford was cut into thirds and given to the 1st, 2nd and 6th districts. Baltimore County was spread across the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th. Anne Arundel was divided among the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th. The 2nd and 3rd districts look like someone spilled ink on a map of Maryland.

Rather than correct the mess, however, most observers expect the O’Malley task force to try to make the congressional delegation even more Democratic. The 6th District, currently a Republican stronghold, is the most likely target, with many of the District’s Republican voters being shifted to the 1st District which would then stretch from Somerset County to Carroll County. The process is being driven by the National Democratic Party and its desire to gain the two-dozen seats needed to reclaim control of the House of Representative; representing the interests of Maryland’s voters is of little concern.

Meanwhile, state Republicans have proposed a map with compact districts that treat the borders of counties and communities with respect. Only Baltimore County would occupy more than two districts. A badly needed Baltimore City district (a new District 7) would be created by adding a sliver of Baltimore County’s population to the city’s 631,000 residents. Harford would occupy one district. Anne Arundel would be in two districts not four. Montgomery and Prince George’s would each be included in two districts — the minimum possible given their large populations.

But the Republican map will be ignored. Fatally, it would probably produce a five-to-three party split, with the newly drawn 1st, 3rd and 6th Districts likely to elect Republicans. The 2nd District would become a new swing district, and the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th would almost certainly stay in Democratic hands.

Yet those results would better represent the political and geographic diversity of the state. Democrats make up 56 percent of Maryland voters and Republicans 27 percent. But the Democrats’ advantage is tightly confined to the city of Baltimore and the D.C. suburbs, with the remainder of the state more competitive or leaning Republican, and unaffiliated voters (about 15 percent) are the fastest rising voting bloc in the state. Because of that, a congressional map yielding a delegation of four Democrats and three Republicans, with one swing district, would be a fair representation of the true political geography of the state. It would without question be much more accurate than a map creating a seven-to-one Democratic advantage.

The Republicans’ proposal isn’t perfect, but it is the standard by which the coming O’Malley map should be judged.

With Eye on White House, O'Malley Shifts Tactics

The Washington Post is reporting that Governor Martin O'Malley is considering whether to sponsor legislation in the 2012 Legislative Session that would legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. O'Malley was largely silent on the issue when it was considered, and defeated, during the 2011 session.

The defeat of same-sex marriage in Maryland was viewed as a major defeat for an issue that has recently earned the support of a majority of Americans, but remains deeply unpopular among many influential groups - including African-American religious leaders, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, and multiple conservative Christian organizations.

The movement was revitalized, however, when the New York Assembly approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage in the Empire State. New York became only the sixth, but the largest, state to legalize same-sex marriage. That same-sex marriage was legalized in New York and not Maryland is made even more interesting given that the New York State Senate is controlled by Republicans. Maryland's State Senate is home to 35 Democrats and only 12 Republicans - Republicans lack even sufficient numbers to filibuster legislation - same sex marriage narrowly passed in the Maryland Senate in 2011. Maryland's House of delegates is home to 98 Democrats and 43 Republicans - same-sex marriage died in the House of Delegates after an intense effort by African-American religious leaders and state Catholic leaders convinced several sponsors of the legislation to withdraw their support.

Nearly every analyst agrees that the crucial player in New York was the state's governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, a Democrat, is in his first term and has not shied away from wading into some of the most difficult positions facing his state.  Cuomo fought vigorously both publicly and behind the scenes to ensure passage of the bill. Upon taking office he made legalization of same-sex unions a priority.

Like Maryland (and most other states), New York is facing tremendous budget troubles - in New York, like Maryland (and most other states) a significant portion of the budget woes stem from obligations to public employee health and pension plans. Cuomo negotiated a deal with state labor leaders that should save nearly $1.6 billion over 5 years via a three year wage freeze raise, the retirement age for most state workers was raised from 62 to 65 and from 57 to 65 for teachers. Additionally, workers’ contributions to their pensions are to increase from 3 percent to 6 percent of their salaries. And Cuomo won those concessions via amicable negotiations with union leaders.

All of this success has raised Cuomo's profile. Not only are folks viewing him as a leading contender for the 2016 Democratic nomination there have been recent whispers that he may replace Joe Biden as President Obama's running mate in 2012.

For O'Malley, Cuomo's success is anything but a cause for celebration. O'Malley has been using his current position as Chair of the Democratic Governor's Association to raise his own profile. He has picked fights with prominent Republicans like Chris Christie in New Jersey and Scott Walker in Wisconsin and he frequently wades into the national debate - especially with regard to the nation's debt.

O'Malley's intentions are clear - he wants to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Unfortunate to his plans, he is being upstaged by a younger, more dynamic, and far more aggressive Democratic governor - Andrew Cuomo. O'Malley's tenure as governor has been marked by a play it safe, take no chances approach to governing. One of O'Malley's first tests as governor was whether Maryland would allow slot machine gambling in the state - rather than propose legislation legalizing slots O'Malley proposed legislation calling for a voter referendum on the issue. When faced with a $1.4 billion budget shortfall during the 2011 legislative session O'Malley presented a budget with no tax increases, but said he would consider increases proposed by the assembly. O'Malley is not a risk taker - he's a caretaker. When public employees took to Annapolis streets to protest the rather modest changes he proposed to their health and pension system O'Malley joined the protest... he protested his own proposal to avoid alienating a key constituency.

I have argued on this blog that O'Malley has been an effective caretaker of the state's budget, but even there, O'Malley is more focused on balancing the books each year than he is with finding long term solutions. Such solutions would carry greater political risk and likely be tied to a grander vision for the state's future. Even when O'Malley has tried to express a vision, it's often little more than boilerplate slogans lacking in specifics. The problem for O'Malley is that voters tend not to respond to politicians that play it safe and govern with no real vision. There is little to inspire loyalty or to stir passions. Running for president requires the passionate commitment of supporters willing to give money, participate in caucuses and primaries, make phone calls, and knock on doors. Becoming governor of Maryland or Mayor of Baltimore simply requires being the candidate with a (D) after your name.

Governor O'Malley enjoys a House of Delegates that is 2 to 1 Democrat and a Senate that is 3 to 1 Democrat - yet he has struggled to have any of his modest agenda enacted. His proposal for the development of offshore wind power was rejected, his proposal for tax credits to bring investors to Maryland was dramatically scaled back. Maryland is home to one of the most powerful governors (on paper) in the nation and O'Malley won re-election in 2010 by a 14.5 point margin - yet he appears to have little influence over a General Assembly dominated by members of his own party. If he were President, he would likely face a Congress either partially or fully controlled by an opposition party.

Cuomo has worked successfully with a divided legislature and has been willing to challenge key members of his constituency. He bargained and exerted his influence on members of both parties to ensure passage of the bills that he supports. Cuomo is a risk taker.

O'Malley and his advisors have seen the future of the Democratic Party and that future looks like Andrew Cuomo - not Martin O'Malley. The O'Malley camp is now attempting to retool the Governor's image. For O'Malley the stakes are high. O'Malley must vacate the governor's mansion in January of 2015 and one assumes that he will transition immediately into full-time presidential candidate. But O'Malley will be coming off of a lame-duck term as governor and worries that his record may compare poorly to that of Cuomo who is likely to be in the midst of his second term as governor in a state with no term limits and therefor no lame-ducks.

Expect to see a more active O'Malley in the coming years - same-sex marriage will be one of many issues that he is likely to pursue more vigorously. Unfortunately for O'Malley his 2 most influential years were the years immediately following his election and subsequent re-election. If the General Assembly felt comfortable ignoring him after a 14.5 percentage point landslide, why would they start to listen to him now?

I support marriage equality, but it's quite unlikely that the Maryland General Assembly will consider, or pass, same-sex legislation in the foreseeable future - owing to the successful petition drive that has at least temporarily halted legislation enacted in 2011 that would grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. Opponents of the measure gathered over 110,000 signatures (more than twice the number required) on a petition to have the measure placed on the ballot in 2012 and either approved or rejected by the voters - the first time in 20 years that such an effort has succeeded.

The success of that ballot initiative (regardless of the outcome in 2012) will serve as a warning to members of the Assembly as they consider same-sex marriage. A similar petition and ballot initiative would likely result in the question of same-sex marriage being put on the ballot in 2014 (though it's possible it would be on the 2012 ballot, state Republicans would likely use whatever means available to defer the issue until the 2014 election) - when Marylanders will elect a Governor, an Attorney General, and every member of the General Assembly. Members of the Assembly will not want to face election or re-election in a year that would see tremendous turn-out by conservative and religious voters determined to defeat same-sex marriage. O'Malley's support of the legislation is likely to have little impact, but had he taken the risk and thrown his support behind the measure in 2011 it may have made the difference.

Independent Voters are no Myth

Over at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball page, senior columnist Alan Abramowitz takes on what he calls "myths" about Independent voters. Several of his points are quite correct and I will not quibble with them, but Abramowitz is far too dismissive of what it means to be an Independent. Abramowitz writes "the large majority of independents are independents in name only. Research by political scientists on the American electorate has consistently found that the large majority of self-identified independents are “closet partisans” who think and vote much like other partisans."

What do the numbers tell us about Independents? Though some scholars (Abramowitz among them) contend that there has been a marked rise in partisanship among the mass electorate in recent years and a solidification of partisan support, there is equally compelling evidence that the trek away from party allegiance that began in the 1960s continues through today.

According to data from the American National Election Study, in 1964 approximately 76 percent of the country identified as a “Partisan” (either weak or strong) in contrast only 24 percent identified as Independent or Leaning Independent (Leaners). By 1984 it was 65 percent to 35 percent and in 2008 it was 60 percent to 40 percent. Across that 42 year span the share identifying as Strong Partisans decreased from 38 percent in 1964 to 32 percent in 2008 and Weak Partisans declined from 38 percent to 28 percent. The share identifying as Leaning Independent, so-called Leaners, doubled from 15 percent to 29 percent. Though research has shown that many self identified Independents will express a partisan preference if pressed, there has been a clear trend toward an initial preference of Independent.

Through 1964 fewer than a quarter of the electorate self identified as a Pure Independent or an Independent leaning Democrats or Republicans. By 1968 that share had risen to 30 percent, and as of 2008 was at 39 percent of the electorate. There is no indication of decline in the Independent preference among voters. Though they may lean Democrat or Republican Americans are clearly less willing to express allegiance to one of the two major parties than they were in the 1950s and 1960s.

Some scholars use the same data to make the opposite argument concluding “if voters are becoming more partisan, we would expect declines in pure independents to result in increases in independent partisans. This is evident for both Democrats and Republicans.” That conclusion is debatable. If indeed we are seeing an increase in partisanship then perhaps we would see a decline in pure independents, but it is also likely that we would see a rise in partisans of all stripes – Strong, Weak and Independent. For Democrats, this has not happened and the rise in Independent Democrats appears not to have come from declines in pure Independents, but rather a decline in Weak Democrats – this does not suggest growing partisanship, but rather weakening partisanship.

The chart above tracks Democratic Party identification since 1952 and shows a clear decline in Democratic Party affiliation. From 1952 through 1968 Democratic Party affiliation averaged 54.9 percent of the electorate, from 1970 through 1980 the average was 52.3 percent and since 1982 the average is 49.8 percent. If one were to narrow the window to the 1990-2008 period the average is 49.7 percent. Though the share of Strong Democrats has rebounded from its lows in the 1970s it remains well below its average from 1952 through 1968. There also has been a marked decline in the share of Weak Democrats since the 1960s and it appears that the increase in Independent Democrats has been driven by the decline in Weak Democrats – not by a decline in Pure Independents. In short, fewer people are identifying as Democrats than did so prior to 1968 and those who do identify as Democrats are increasingly identifying as Independent Democrats.

The ANES data does show an increase in Republican partisanship, but this in entirely consistent with the collapse of the New Deal era and with it the dominance of the Democratic Party.  Even among Republicans, however, there has been considerable growth among Independent partisans and evidence of a rebound among Strong Republicans following the lows of the 1970s – likely an artifact of the Nixon Administration and Watergate. The Republican share of the electorate averaged 33.9 percent from 1952 through 1968, then fell to 32.1 percent during the 1970s, and climbed to 38.2 percent in the decades since 1980. But the share of Strong Republicans from 1982 through 2008 was 12.2 percent, essentially the same as the average of 12.4 percent prior to 1968 – the “rise” in Strong Republicans is again likely an artifact of a collapse in Republican Party identification during the 1970s.

That said, the true growth area in partisan politics has been among the group of Americans Identifying as Independent, either Pure, or Leaning Democrat or Republican. Though there are fewer Pure Independents as a share of the electorate than during the decade immediately following the collapse of the New Deal Era in the late 1960s and during the height of the Watergate era there are more Pure Independents, Independent Democrats, and Independent Republicans today than during any measured era dating to the 1950s.

So when Gallup release a graph, like the one below, Democrats and Republicans should be concerned. Though Democratic Party affiliation matched a 20 year peak of 36 percent in 2008 it has since fallen to its lowest levels (according to Gallup) in 22 years. The Gallup data clearly shows that neither party can claim the allegiance of a majority of the electorate and since 1990 has rarely captured a plurality. At best, the data on party affiliation, whether from ANES or Gallup, suggest that there has been some solidification of the Strong Partisan base of each party, though collectively these Strong Partisans account for less than one-third of the electorate.

Are Independents independent in name only? No, not really. In The Myth of the Independent Voter, Keith et al., (1992) argued there has been little change in partisan attachment since the 1960s. Rather, the authors contend people identifying as Independents often reveal a preference for one of the two major parties when pressed to make a choice. These Leaners behave much the same as their more partisan counterparts with regard to issue positions and vote choice - this is the Abramowitx argument. In a 2009 article in Electoral Studies, political scientist John Petrocick argued, “Leaners are partisans. Characterizing them as independents underestimates the partisanship of Americans…”

But studies of partisanship often consider the views of Leaners at a given point in time or their votes in a specific election or examine the stability of partisan identification by merging all partisans – Strong, Weak, or Leaning – together and measure macro-level party identification. These measure do not take into consideration the temporal nature of partisan attachment and the propensity to change party affiliation over time. Additionally, in an era of candidate-centered politics it is possible that Idependents express a preference for the party of the candidate that they have chosen to support. So it would not be surprising that an Independent that leans Democratic votes the same as a Strong Partisan Democrat - in a specific election. But the Strong Partisan Democrat voted Democratic because of partisanship, the Independent, however, voted Democrat and expressed a Democratic preference because of the candidate.

But the lerger question really pertains to the size and stability of a governing coalition over time. For a President or a political party to succeed they must have a stable electoral coalition. If Independent voters are the fastest growing segment of the electorate and if they are truly independent, then Democrats and Republicans need to worry. But if folks like Alan Abramowitz are correct, then the parties can ignore the threat of the Independent voter.

A review of ANES data from a panel survey that included 2000, 2002, and 2004 however, shows that Independent Democrats and Independent Republicans (roughly a third of each party) are much less attached to their party than either Weak or Strong partisans over time.

Of those respondents who self-identified as an Independent Democrat in 2000, 31.4 percent no longer identified with the Democratic Party in 2002, nearly as many, 29.8 percent, no longer identified with the party in 2004. For Republican Leaners the results were similar, 27.2 percent no longer identified with the Republican Party in 2002, 26.1 percent in 2004.

Strong as well as Weak partisans left their respective parties at far smaller rates over time. Equally worthy of not, Independent Democrats and Republicans who left their 2000 party were just as likely to identify with the opposition party in 2002 and 2004 as they were to simply identify as pure Independents.

A review of 2004 partisan identification shows that fully one-third of Independent Democrats and Independent Republicans in 2004 identified with another party or no party in 2000. Simply stated, partisan identification is much less stable among Independent partisans and Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm (in a 2009 issue of Polity) found that Independent partisans are more moderate than Strong partisans.

Abramowitz and others are correct - Independent Partisans do vote much like their Strong Partisan counterparts in a given election, but the ANES panel data suggests that a significant share of Independent Partisans (between a quarter and a third) may well have a different partisan stripe by the next election cycle. Far from the “unmoved mover” described in The American Voter (Campbell et al., 1960), partisanship among Independent Partisans moves and they are the fasted growing segment of the electorate.

Fully 11% of the electorate are Pure Independents, another 30% are Independent Partisans (about 18% Democrats and 12% Republicans) and between one-quarter and one-third of these Independent Partisans are far less attached to party from election to election. At the very least, this suggests a 20% voting bloc that is quite volatile - in a country where our presidential elections have been decided by margins of 7 percentage points or less since 2000 and the difference between the national two party vote share in House elections has averaged about 5 percentage points since 1990.

Independent voters are no myth, they matter, and (when you include among them Independent Partisans) they absolutely sway elections. Indeed, the present and highly competitive political era in which we are living is a direct result of a decrease in partisan attachment coupled with an increasing level of partisanship among each party's relatively equal (and small) in size base.

I'm Back...

After a much needed vacation, and time spent dedicated to my forthcoming book "America's Dysfunctional Political System" I am happy to announce that I will be resuming regular posts to the FreeStater Blog.

Stay tuned...