Realigning elections in United States history

[Horse with no Name]

Realigning elections in United States history

Here is presented a list of elections most often cited as "realigning," with disagreements noted:

United States presidential election, 1800 — Thomas Jefferson
This election completed the turnover of power from the Federalist Party, embodied in Alexander Hamilton, to Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. Power shifted from New England to the South.
Democratic-Republicans gained 19.7% of House seats in 1800, 9.4% in 1802 and 9.7% in 1804, for a total gain of 38.8% in 3 elections.
As late as 1812, the Federalists came within one state of winning. A larger shift in electoral politics arguably came in the 1812–1816 period, as the Federalists became discredited after opposing the War of 1812.

United States presidential election, 1828 — Andrew Jackson
This election redefined the party system in the United States. The Democratic-Republicans split into two parties, later renamed as the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The Democrats were led by Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and Martin Van Buren of New York. By 1834 the Whigs emerged as the opposition to Andrew Jackson, led by Henry Clay of Kentucky.<4>

United States presidential election, 1860 — Abraham Lincoln
After the Whigs collapsed after 1852, party alignments were in turmoil, with several third parties, such as the Know Nothings and the Opposition Party. The system stabilized in 1858 and the presidential election marked the ascendence of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln beat out three other contenders — but even if they had somehow united he still had the majority of the electoral vote. The Republican party was pledged to the long-term ending of slavery, which was proximate cause of secession. Republicans rallied around nationalism in 1861 and fought the American Civil War to end secession. During the war the Republicans, under Lincoln's leadership, switched to a goal of short-term ending of slavery.<4> By 1864, the Republicans had a coalition built around followers of the "free labor" ideology, as well as soldiers and veterans of the Union Army (Since then, the military establishment has been solidly Republican).
The Republican Party went from 18.3% of the House in 1854, to 38.0% in 1856, 48.7% in 1858, and 59.0% in 1860, for a total gain of 59.0% in 4 elections.<5>

United States presidential election, 1896 — William McKinley
The status of this election is hotly disputed; some political scientists, such as Jerome Clubb, do not consider it a realigning election. Other political scientists and historians, such as Kleppner and Burnham consider this the ultimate realignment and emphasize that the rules of the game had changed, the leaders were new, voting alignments had changed, and a whole new set of issues came to dominance as the old Civil-War-Era issues faded away. Funding from office holders was replaced by outside fund raising from business in 1896 — a major shift in political history. Furthermore McKinley's tactics in beating William Jennings Bryan (as developed by Mark Hanna) marked a sea change in the evolution of the modern campaigning. McKinley raised a huge amount of money from business interests, outspending Bryan by 10 to 1. Bryan meanwhile invented the modern technique of campaigning heavily in closely contested states, the first candidate to do so.<6> Bryan's message of populism and class conflict marked a new direction for the Democrats. McKinley's victory in 1896 and repeat in 1900 was a triumph for pluralism, as all sectors and groups shared in the new prosperity brought about by his policy of rapid industrial growth.<7><8>
While Republicans lost House seats in 1896, this followed a massive two-election gain: from 25.9% in 1890 to 34.8% in 1892 and 71.1% in 1894, for a total 45.2% gain. Republicans lost 13.4% in 1896, but still held 57.7% of House seats.
In terms of correlations among counties, the election of 1896 is a realignment flop, but this is only a problem if realignment is considered to occur in single elections. Rather, if realignment is thought of as a generational or long-term political movement, then change will occur over several elections, even if there is one "critical" election defining the new alignment. So, as pointed out above, the 1896 realignment really began around 1892, and the 110 seat GOP gain (after all, this is the all-time record) in 1894 meant there were almost no seats left to pick up in 1896. However, the presidential election in 1896 is usually considered the start of the new alignment since the national election allowed the nation to make a more conscious decision about the future of industrial policy by selecting McKinley over Bryan, making this the defining election in the realignment.<9> The election of 1876 passes the numbers test much better compared to 1896 alone, and Mayhew (2004) argues it resulted in far more drastic changes in United States politics: Reconstruction came to a sudden halt, African-Americans in the South would soon be completely disenfranchised, and politicians began to focus on new issues (such as tariffs and civil service reform).

United States presidential election, 1932 — Franklin D. Roosevelt
Of all the realigning elections, this one musters the most agreement from political scientists and historians; it is the archetypal realigning election.<9> FDR's admirers such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have argued that New Deal policies, developed in response to the crash of 1929 and the miseries of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics. More critical historians such as Carl Degler and David Kennedy see a great deal of continuity with Hoover's energetic but unsuccessful economic policies. There is no doubt Democrats vehemently attacked Hoover for 50 years. In many ways, Roosevelt's legacy still defines the Democratic Party; he forged an enduring New Deal Coalition of big city machines, the White South, intellectuals, labor unions, Catholics, Jews, and Westerners. In 1936, African-Americans were added to the coalition (African-Americans had previously been denied the vote or voted Republican). For instance, Pittsburgh, which was a Republican stronghold from the Civil War up to this point, suddenly became a Democratic stronghold, and has elected a Democratic mayor to office in every election since this time.
The Democrats went from 37.7% of House seats in 1928 to 49.6% in 1930 and 71.9% in 1932, for a total gain of 34.2% in two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election

For the most part I agree with this...but one thing I understand...it is time for a political realignment in this country. Both the Democratic and republican brands are so severely tarnished that we should just throw them out like they did the Whigs and the Tories.
Or...just let them morph into the single party they are anyway.

[Hawkowl]

1. Oh it is coming

It will be painful and unpredictable. If Americans start looking around the world at Greece, the UK, Libya, Egypt, we could see that "realignment" has already begun.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I'd rather it come sooner than lalter...no matter how painful

The generation previous to mine as well as mine have failed this country miserably.

It only seems right that we should suffer the consequences of that failure and start the process to cleaning it up.

[AgainsttheCrown]

3. If they didn't erect barriers to the entry...

Of third parties, then we might have seen a realignment of parties. Perhaps the Democratic party would have become the home of the center right and the Republican party would have died off.

While a leftist party rose to prominence.

Our politics could have shifted further left. But the establishment only seeks to maintain and consolidate its power. In this perverse system, bipartisanship is strongest when the system is challenged (see Wikileaks).

I've read theories that perhaps the new realignment is dealignment from the parties and the rise of independents. But that really doesn't matter when the parties control access to the ballot and their primaries determine who goes on the ballots. The independent movement is too ideologically broad to be as effective as they think they are. Movements in this country are useless without ways to organize.