AP US Government & Politics: Political Parties and Party Realignment/Dealignment

AP US Government & Politics – Political Parties and Party Realignment/Dealignment

AP US Government & Politics: Political Parties and Party Realignment/Dealignment

What This Is

Political parties are organized groups that seek to win elections, influence policy, and shape government. Party realignment occurs when voter loyalty shifts dramatically, often due to a major crisis (e.g., the Great Depression leading to Democratic dominance in the 1930s). Dealignment happens when voters abandon parties without replacing them, leading to more independents (e.g., the rise of "ticket-splitting" in the 1970s–90s). These concepts explain how the U.S. political landscape changes over time—critical for understanding elections, voting behavior, and policy shifts on the AP exam.

Real-world example: The 1932 election (FDR vs. Hoover) marked a realignment—urban workers, minorities, and Southern whites shifted to the Democrats, creating the New Deal coalition that dominated for decades. By the 1960s–70s, dealignment began as voters grew disillusioned with parties, leading to divided government and more independents.

Key Terms & Concepts

• Political Party: A group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them with a label (party ID) and a platform.
• Party Platform: A formal set of goals and policies adopted at a party’s national convention (e.g., Democrats’ 2020 platform on healthcare vs. Republicans’ on deregulation).
• Party-in-Government: Elected officials who identify with a party (e.g., Democratic senators, Republican governors).
• Party-in-the-Electorate: Voters who identify with a party (e.g., "I’m a Democrat" or "I lean Republican").
• Party Organization: The formal structure of a party (e.g., DNC, RNC, state/local committees).
• Critical Election: An election signaling a realignment (e.g., 1860, 1932, 1968) where new voter coalitions emerge.
• Party Realignment: A durable shift in voter loyalty to a party, often triggered by a crisis (e.g., Civil War → Republicans dominate; Great Depression → Democrats dominate).
• Secular Realignment: Gradual shifts in party coalitions (e.g., Southern whites moving from Democrats to Republicans post-1964 Civil Rights Act).
• Dealignment: Voters abandon parties without joining another, leading to more independents and split-ticket voting (e.g., 1970s–90s).
• Split-Ticket Voting: Voting for candidates of different parties in the same election (e.g., voting for a Democratic president but a Republican senator).
• Party Polarization: Increasing ideological distance between parties (e.g., Democrats becoming more liberal, Republicans more conservative since the 1990s).
• Third Parties: Minor parties (e.g., Libertarian, Green) that rarely win but can influence elections (e.g., Ralph Nader in 2000 siphoning votes from Al Gore).

Step-by-Step: Analyzing Party Realignment/Dealignment

1. Identify the Election/Crisis: Look for a major event (e.g., Great Depression, Civil Rights Movement) that could trigger realignment.
2. Examine Voter Shifts: Check if a demographic group (e.g., African Americans, white Southerners) switches party loyalty.
3. Assess Duration: Realignment lasts decades (e.g., New Deal coalition from 1932–1968); dealignment is more temporary (e.g., 1970s–90s).
4. Compare Party Platforms: Did the parties’ stances change? (e.g., Democrats embracing civil rights in 1964 → Southern realignment to Republicans).
5. Evaluate Electoral Impact: Did one party gain long-term dominance? (e.g., Republicans post-1860, Democrats post-1932).
6. Check for Dealignment: If voters abandon parties without a clear shift, it’s dealignment (e.g., rise of independents in the 1970s).

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Confusing realignment with dealignment.
  Correction: Realignment = voters switch parties (e.g., Southern whites to Republicans); dealignment = voters leave parties entirely (e.g., rise of independents).

• Mistake: Assuming third parties always cause realignment.
  Correction: Third parties rarely win but can spoil elections (e.g., Nader in 2000) or influence major parties (e.g., Populists pushing Democrats toward progressive policies in the 1890s).

• Mistake: Thinking party platforms are binding on candidates.
  Correction: Platforms are suggestions, not rules—candidates often ignore them (e.g., Trump’s 2016 platform differed from GOP establishment).

• Mistake: Ignoring secular realignment (gradual shifts).
  Correction: Not all realignments are sudden (e.g., Southern whites shifting to Republicans took decades post-1964).

• Mistake: Overlooking party polarization as a cause of dealignment.
  Correction: Extreme polarization can push moderates away from both parties (e.g., 2010s–2020s rise of "never Trump" Republicans and "never Biden" Democrats).

AP Exam Insights

1. FRQ Focus: Expect questions on realignment vs. dealignment (e.g., "Explain how the 1968 election demonstrated realignment" or "Describe dealignment in the 1970s–90s").
2. MC Traps:
3. Tricky Distinction: "Critical election" vs. "secular realignment" (sudden vs. gradual).
4. Third Parties: Often tested as "spoilers" (e.g., 2000 election) rather than realignment triggers.
5. Document Analysis: You might get a party platform excerpt or voting data (e.g., "Explain how this 1936 platform reflects the New Deal coalition").
6. Polarization Link: Questions may connect realignment/dealignment to increased polarization (e.g., "How did the 1964 Civil Rights Act contribute to party polarization?").

Quick Check Questions

1. Which of the following is the BEST example of party realignment?
   A) The rise of independents in the 1970s
   B) African Americans shifting from Republicans to Democrats in the 1930s
   C) The Tea Party movement influencing the GOP in 2010
   D) Split-ticket voting in the 1980s
   Answer: B – Realignment involves a durable shift in voter loyalty (African Americans became a core Democratic bloc).

2. Short FRQ: "Describe one way third parties have influenced U.S. elections and explain why they rarely win."
   Sample Answer: Third parties spoil elections (e.g., Nader in 2000 siphoned votes from Gore, costing him Florida). They rarely win because of winner-take-all elections, ballot access laws, and lack of media coverage.

3. Which trend BEST describes dealignment?
   A) Voters switching from one major party to another
   B) Voters abandoning parties to become independents
   C) A party adopting a new platform
   D) A third party winning a state election
   Answer: B – Dealignment = voters leaving parties without joining another (e.g., rise of independents in the 1970s–90s).

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

1. Realignment: Voters switch parties long-term (e.g., 1932, 1968).
2. Dealignment: Voters leave parties → more independents (e.g., 1970s–90s).
3. Critical Election: Signals realignment (e.g., 1860, 1932, 1968).
4. Secular Realignment: Gradual shift (e.g., Southern whites to GOP post-1964).
5. Split-Ticket Voting: Voting for different parties in same election (⚠️ declined due to polarization).
6. Third Parties: Rarely win but can spoil elections (e.g., 2000 Nader).
7. Party Polarization: Increasing ideological divide (⚠️ contributes to dealignment).
8. New Deal Coalition: FDR’s 1932 realignment (urban workers, minorities, Southern whites).
9. 1968 Election: Nixon’s "Southern Strategy" → GOP realignment in the South.
10. ⚠️ Trap: Dealignment ≠ realignment (dealignment = no clear party shift).