Political realignment


A political realignment is a set of sharp changes in party-related ideology, issues, leaders, regional bases, demographic bases, and/or the structure of powers within a government. In the fields of political science and political history, this is often referred to as a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election. These changes result in a restructuring of political focus and power that lasts for decades, usually replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections as this is where it is most common, though the experience also does occur in governments across the globe. It is generally accepted that the United States has had five distinct party systems, each featuring two major parties attracting a consistent political coalition and following a consistent party ideology, separated by four realignments. Two of the most apparent examples include the 1896 United States presidential election, when the issues of the American Civil War political system were replaced with those of the Populist and Progressive Era, and the 1932 United States presidential election, when the issues of the Populist and Progressive Eras were replaced by New Deal liberalism and modern conservatism. Realigning elections also contribute significantly to realigning party systems—with 1828, for example, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US.
Political realignments can be sudden or can take place more gradually. Most often, as demonstrated in V. O. Key Jr.'s original hypothesis, a single "critical election" marks a sudden realignment. However he also argued that a cyclical process of realignment exists, wherein political views within interests groups gradually begin to separate which he designated as secular realignment. Political scientists and historians often disagree about which elections are realignments and what defines a realignment, and even whether realignments occur. The terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary, however, and usage among political scientists and historians does vary. In the US, Walter Dean Burnham argued for a 30–38 year "cycle" of realignments. Many of the elections often included in the Burnham 38-year cycle are considered "realigning" for different reasons.
Other political scientists and quantitative elections analysts reject realignment theory altogether, arguing that there are no long-term patterns. Political scientist David R. Mayhew states, "Elections and their underlying causes are not usefully sortable into generation-long spans ... It is too slippery, too binary, too apocalyptic, and it has come to be too much of a dead end." Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, also argues against the realignment theory and the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis proposed by journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira. In his 2012 book The Lost Majority, Trende states, "Almost none of the theories propounded by realignment theorists has endured the test of time... It turns out that finding a 'realigning' election is a lot like finding an image of Jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich – if you stare long enough and hard enough, you will eventually find what you are looking for." In August 2013, Trende observed that U.S. presidential election results from 1880 through 2012 form a 0.96 correlation with the expected sets of outcomes in the binomial distribution of a fair coin flip experiment. In May 2015, statistician and FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver argued against a blue wall Electoral College advantage for the Democratic Party in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and in post-election analysis, Silver cited Trende in noting that "there are few if any permanent majorities" and both Silver and Trende argued that the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis led most news coverage and commentary preceding the election to overstate Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected.

Realignment theory

The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V. O. Key Jr.'s 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections", is that American elections, parties and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps as well as slow, gradual movements.
V. O. Key Jr., E. E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, Walter Dean Burnham are generally credited with developing and refining the theory of realignment. Though they differed on some of the details, earlier realignments scholars generally concluded that systematic patterns are identifiable in American national elections. Such that cycles occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so. This period of roughly 30 years fits with the notion that these cycles are closely linked to generational change. However later scholars, such as Shafer and Reichley, argue that the patterns are longer, closer to 50 to 60 years in duration. Pointing to the Democratic dominance from 1800 to 1860, and Republican rule from 1860 to 1932 as examples, Reichley argues that the only true realigning elections occurred in these 60 year periods. Given the much longer length of time since the last generally accepted realignment in 1932, more recent scholars have theorized that realignments don't in fact operate on any consistent time scale, but rather occur whenever the necessary political, social, and economic changes occur.

Voter realignments

A central component of realignment is the change in behavior of voting groups. Realignment within the context of voting relates to the switching of voter preferences from one party to another. This is in contrast to dealignment where a voter group abandons a party due to voter apathy or to become independent. In the US and Australia, as the ideologies of the parties define many of the aspects of voters' lives and the decisions that they make, a realignment by a voter tends to have a longer-lasting effect.
In Britain, Canada, and other countries the phenomenon of political realignment is not as drastic. Due to the multi-party system, voters have a tendency to switch parties on a whim, perhaps only for one election, as there is far less loyalty towards one particular party.

Cultural issues

The major political parties in the United States have held the same name for over a century, yet there is no doubt that their values and intentions have changed. While realignment is caused by various reasons, one of the largest factors is cultural issues. The culture of a population is altered over time as technology advances, needs change, and values evolve. With this shift, a population's views and desires will also change, thus resulting in parties realigning to be relevant to present topics.
In recent years, LGBTQ rights has become a growing factor in politics around the world. The increasing publicized presence of the LGBTQ community has created rifts and realignments in political parties. For example, in 2022, there were 315 bills introduced to various state legislatures across the United States that were found to be anti-LGBTQ. Of these 315 bills, 29 were signed into the state's law.
While further discussing evolving social issues and its relation to party realignment, the growing issue of abortion has been found in relevancy to newly found party values. These values which differentiate between certain parties can be attributed to federal abortion policies, which have been altered, fought for, and lost, thus creating a mass social issue. Since Roe v. Wade, abortion has largely become a major aspect of US politics. Furthermore, the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case has sparked further issues in the US political scene, as it overturned the constitutional right of abortion that was granted from Roe v. Wade, in 1973. The issue of abortion, state restrictions, and overturning of federal funding for procedures has created a political uproar in the US. For example, many state legislatures, members of Congress, and other politically powered members have created restrictions on insurance, funding, and the overall accessibility of having an abortion. These actions have created the movement of activists to fight for the right of abortion. Furthermore, this battle has caused political parties to acknowledge the cause, determine their stance, and realign overall.

United States

Political realignment in United States history

  • 1800 presidential election — Thomas Jefferson
  • * This election completed the turnover of power in the First Party System from the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, to Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. The center of power shifted from New England to the South and Jeffersonian democracy became the dominant ideology.
  • * 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.
  • 1828 presidential election — Andrew Jackson
  • * This election redefined the party system in the United States, setting up the Second Party System, which was dominated by Jacksonian democracy. 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.
  • 1860 presidential election — 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. 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.
  • ** 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 40.7% in 4 elections.
  • 1896 presidential election — 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 fundraising from business in 1896 — a major shift in political history. Furthermore, McKinley's tactics in beating William Jennings Bryan marked a sea change in the evolution of the modern campaign. 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. 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.
  • * 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 130 seat GOP gain in 1894, the all-record for a house election, 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. The election of 1876 passes the numbers test much better compared to 1896 alone, and Mayhew 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.
  • 1932 presidential election — 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. 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. 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. 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 controlling 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.
  • * In the Senate, the Democrats went from controlling 40.6% of seats in 1928 to 49% in 1930 and 61.5% in 1932, for a total gain of 20.9% in two elections.