|
|
| Issues : Political Parties
| Examining today's biggest issues from a broader perspective. More info here.
|
Control of Congress (last updated November 16, 2002) (back to top)
The Republican Party re-gained control of the Senate and solidified its control of the House in the Nov. 5, 2002 mid-term elections, thus placing the legislative and executive branches fully in the control of one party for the first time in years. The Republicans took control of the House in 1995 and the Senate in 1997, but lost control of the Senate in June 2001 when Sen. Jeffrey Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to become a Democrat-affiliated independent.
The shift in power gives President George W. Bush – who campaigned extensively in the days preceding the election – and the Republican Party greater control of the legislative agenda. The majority party in the Senate gets to lead the Senate committees and thus can push their actions, such as making permanent the Bush tax cut of 2001, the creation of a homeland security department, and the confirmation of conservative federal judges. However, the narrow majority in the Senate still means that the Democrats are needed to pass some Senate actions and that they can use procedural devices such as filibusters to prevent some actions from coming up for a vote, and that the Senate could easily shift again with the 2004 elections.
Going into the 2002 elections, the Democrats had 50 seats in the Senate as well as the support of Sen. Jeffords, and the Republicans had 49 seats. With a Louisiana election still in dispute a few days after the elections, the Republicans had at least 51 seats in the new Senate and the Democrats had no more than 48 seats plus Jeffords' support.
The following charts show how strong the majority party's control of the Senate has been and how party divisions have changed in recent years.
Sources: The Senate has information about party divisions on-line here.
How the Senate has Changed, by the Numbers (last updated 2001) (back to top)
|
| Session of Congress
| Year Session Began
| Democ
| Repub
| Other / Vacant
| Total Seats
| | 56 | 1899 | 26 | 53 | 11 | 90
| | 57 | 1901 | 32 | 56 | 2 | 90
| | 58 | 1903 | 33 | 57 | | 90
| | 59 | 1905 | 32 | 58 | | 90
| | 60 | 1907 | 31 | 61 | | 92
| | 61 | 1909 | 32 | 60 | | 92
| | 62 | 1911 | 44 | 52 | | 96
| | 63 | 1913 | 51 | 44 | 1 | 96
| | 64 | 1915 | 56 | 40 | | 96
| | 64 | 1917 | 54 | 42 | | 96
| | 65 | 1919 | 47 | 49 | | 96
| | 66 | 1921 | 37 | 59 | | 96
| | 67 | 1923 | 42 | 53 | | 96
| | 68 | 1925 | 41 | 54 | 1 | 96
| | 69 | 1927 | 46 | 48 | 1 | 96
| | 70 | 1929 | 39 | 56 | 1 | 96
| | 71 | 1931 | 47 | 48 | 1 | 96
| | 72 | 1933 | 59 | 36 | 1 | 96
| | 73 | 1935 | 69 | 25 | 1 | 96
| | 74 | 1937 | 76 | 16 | 2 | 96
| | 75 | 1939 | 69 | 23 | 4 | 96
| | 76 | 1941 | 66 | 28 | 4 | 96
| | 77 | 1943 | 57 | 38 | 2 | 96
| | 78 | 1945 | 57 | 38 | 1 | 96
| | 79 | 1947 | 45 | 51 | 1 | 96
| | 81 | 1949 | 54 | 42 | | 96
| | 82 | 1951 | 49 | 47 | | 96
| | 83 | 1953 | 47 | 48 | 1 | 96
| | 84 | 1955 | 48 | 47 | 1 | 96
| | 85 | 1957 | 49 | 47 | | 96
| | 86 | 1959 | 65 | 35 | | 100
| | 87 | 1961 | 64 | 36 | | 100
| | 88 | 1963 | 66 | 34 | | 100
| | 89 | 1965 | 68 | 32 | | 100
| | 90 | 1967 | 64 | 36 | | 100
| | 91 | 1969 | 57 | 43 | | 100
| | 92 | 1971 | 54 | 44 | 2 | 100
| | 93 | 1973 | 56 | 42 | 2 | 100
| | 94 | 1975 | 60 | 38 | 2 | 100
| | 95 | 1977 | 61 | 38 | 1 | 100
| | 96 | 1979 | 58 | 41 | 1 | 100
| | 97 | 1981 | 46 | 53 | 1 | 100
| | 98 | 1983 | 46 | 54 | | 100
| | 99 | 1985 | 47 | 53 | | 100
| | 100 | 1987 | 55 | 45 | | 100
| | 101 | 1989 | 55 | 45 | | 100
| | 102 | 1991 | 56 | 44 | | 100
| | 103 | 1993 | 57 | 43 | | 100
| | 104 | 1995 | 52 | 48 | | 100
| | 105 | 1997 | 45 | 55 | | 100
| | 106 | 1999 | 45 | 55 | | 100
| | 107 | 2001 | 50 | 50 | | 100
| | 107.1 | 2001.1 | 50 | 49 | 1 | 100
|
Sources: US Senate statistics, available here.
Senators who have changed parties while in office, since 1901 (last updated 2001) (back to top)
- Miles Poindexter of Washington. Republican to Progressive in 1913 and back to Republican in 1915.
- Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin. Republican, ran as Progressive for President in 1924.
- Robert M. La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin. Republican to Progressive in 1935.
- George W. Norris of Nebraska. Republican to Independent in 1937.
- Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota. Farmer-Labor to Republican in 1941.
- Wayne Morse of Oregon. Republican to Independent in 1953 and to Democrat in 1955.
- Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Independent Democrat to Democrat in 1956 and then to Republican in 1964.
- Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia. Democrat to Independent in 1971.
- Richard Shelby of Alabama. Democrat to Republican in 1994.
- Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado. Democrat to Republican in 1995.
- Bob Smith of New Hampshire. Republican to Independent in 1999, and back to Republican in 1999.
- James Jeffords of Vermont. Republican to Independent in 2001.
Sources: Data on senators who switched parties available here.
How the House has Changed, by the Numbers (last updated 2001) (back to top)
|
| Session of Congress
| Year Session Began
| Democ
| Repub
| Other / Vacant
| Total Seats
| | 56 | 1899 | 163 | 185 | 9 | 357
| | 57 | 1901 | 153 | 198 | 6 | 357
| | 58 | 1903 | 178 | 207 | 1 | 386
| | 59 | 1905 | 136 | 250 | | 386
| | 60 | 1907 | 164 | 222 | | 386
| | 61 | 1909 | 172 | 219 | | 391
| | 62 | 1911 | 228 | 162 | 1 | 391
| | 63 | 1913 | 290 | 127 | 18 | 435
| | 64 | 1915 | 231 | 193 | 11 | 435
| | 64 | 1917 | 210 | 216 | 9 | 435
| | 65 | 1919 | 191 | 237 | 7 | 435
| | 66 | 1921 | 132 | 300 | 3 | 435
| | 67 | 1923 | 207 | 225 | 3 | 435
| | 68 | 1925 | 183 | 247 | 5 | 435
| | 69 | 1927 | 195 | 237 | 3 | 435
| | 70 | 1929 | 163 | 267 | 5 | 435
| | 71 | 1931 | 216 | 218 | 1 | 435
| | 72 | 1933 | 313 | 117 | 5 | 435
| | 73 | 1935 | 322 | 103 | 10 | 435
| | 74 | 1937 | 333 | 89 | 13 | 435
| | 75 | 1939 | 262 | 169 | 4 | 435
| | 76 | 1941 | 267 | 162 | 6 | 435
| | 77 | 1943 | 222 | 209 | 4 | 435
| | 78 | 1945 | 243 | 190 | 2 | 435
| | 79 | 1947 | 188 | 246 | 1 | 435
| | 81 | 1949 | 263 | 171 | 1 | 435
| | 82 | 1951 | 234 | 199 | 2 | 435
| | 83 | 1953 | 213 | 221 | 1 | 435
| | 84 | 1955 | 232 | 203 | | 435
| | 85 | 1957 | 234 | 201 | | 435
| | 86 | 1959 | 283 | 153 | | 435
| | 87 | 1961 | 262 | 175 | | 435
| | 88 | 1963 | 258 | 176 | 1 | 435
| | 89 | 1965 | 295 | 140 | | 435
| | 90 | 1967 | 248 | 187 | | 435
| | 91 | 1969 | 243 | 192 | | 435
| | 92 | 1971 | 255 | 180 | | 435
| | 93 | 1973 | 242 | 192 | 1 | 435
| | 94 | 1975 | 291 | 144 | | 435
| | 95 | 1977 | 292 | 143 | | 435
| | 96 | 1979 | 277 | 158 | | 435
| | 97 | 1981 | 243 | 192 | | 435
| | 98 | 1983 | 268 | 167 | | 435
| | 99 | 1985 | 253 | 182 | | 435
| | 100 | 1987 | 258 | 177 | | 435
| | 101 | 1989 | 260 | 175 | | 435
| | 102 | 1991 | 267 | 167 | 1 | 435
| | 103 | 1993 | 258 | 176 | 1 | 435
| | 104 | 1995 | 204 | 230 | 1 | 435
| | 105 | 1997 | 206 | 228 | 1 | 435
| | 106 | 1999 | 211 | 222 | 2 | 435
| | 107 | 2001 | 211 | 221 | 3 | 435
|
Sources: Information on the pre-election 2002 partisan composition of the U.S. House of Representatives is available on-line here.
Partisan Control of State Governorships and Legislatures (last updated October 1, 2002) (back to top)
Sources: Information on the pre-election 2002 partisan leanings of state governors is available on-line via the National Governors' Association here, and on partisan control of state legislatures via the National Conference of State Legislatures here.
Third-Party Candidates in Presidential and Non-Presidential Elections (last updated October 1, 2002) (back to top)
Third-party candidates have always had a difficult time winning definitive success on the presidential level due in part to a variety of structural and political factors, but have gained some ground in recent years in other kinds of elections. No third-presidential candidate has won any electoral votes since the 1960s, but third-party candidates have won a handful of governorships and other high posts in recent decades. As of early 2002, there were two governors, one Senator, and one member of the House of Representatives who were not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties.
Presidential Elections and Obstacles to Third-Party Success
While most presidential campaigns revolve around the two leading parties' candidates, third-party candidates have been a mainstay of the election season and have sometimes taken on significance in setting the political agenda and even affecting the overall result. Third-party presidential candidates have won more than 5 percent of the popular vote in 13 elections, more than 20 percent in two elections, and some of the electoral votes actually needed to become president in eight elections.
Third parties and third-party candidates cover a wide spectrum; there were at least 13 candidates in the 1992 election, at least 23 candidates in 1996, and at least 17 candidates in the 2000 election, though only Ross Perot and Ralph Nader won more than 1 percent of the popular vote in any of these elections. Nevertheless, they have been grouped loosely by political scientist James Q. Wilson into four categories: (1) ideological parties such as the Socialist Labor Party on one end and the Libertarian Party on the other, (2) one-issue parties such as the still-going Prohibition Party and the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, (3) economic protest parties such as the Populists at the beginning of the 20th century, and (4) factional parties that organize in protest of a major party's presidential candidate. Additionally, a study by Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus concluded that prominent third-party presidential campaigns in the 19th century were primarily about an established political party that offered an alternative to the main two parties of the time, and prominent third-party presidential campaigns in the 20th century have been more centered on a particular individual candidate.
Some recent examples of prominent third-party candidates include :
- Ross Perot (Reform Party). A Texas billionaire with no experience in government, Perot captured public attention during the 1992 election for his focus on the budget deficit and his promises to bring his corporate successes to the White House. Perot participated in three presidential debates against Bill Clinton and George H. Bush, and won about 18 percent of the popular vote (studies have shown that Clinton probably would have still won had Perot not run, though Perot did cost Clinton a majority of the popular vote). Perot ran again in 1996 but with less success; he was not invited to participate in the presidential debates between Clinton and Bob Dole, and won about 8.4 percent of the vote.
- Ralph Nader (Green Party). A long-time consumer advocate, Nader first ran in 1996 with a nominal campaign but became a more active candidate in 2000, saying that he was both criticizing the Democratic Party as well as trying to build the Green Party as a viable and stable third-party. Nader won about 2 percent of the popular vote in 2000.
- Representative John Anderson of Illinois (National Unity Campaign). Originally a moderate Republican, Anderson dropped out of the 1980 Republican primary in favor of Ronald Reagan, but continued his campaign as an independent candidate. He participated in one presidential debate with Reagan (Carter refused to debate Anderson), and won about 6 percent of the popular vote.
- Governor George Wallace (American Independent Party). The last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes, Wallace split from the Democratic Party to run a campaign against the extension of civil rights and in favor of the Vietnam War. He had strong results in the South and won 13.5 percent of the popular vote and 48 electoral seats. Wallace subsequently returned to the Democratic Party.
Third-party candidates face several obstacles to success. Beyond voters' loyalty to a particular major party and voters' choosing simply to not vote rather than to seek out an alternative, third-party candidates face several structural obstacles, some of which are discussed below.
- Electoral college system. The electoral-college system of voting allocates electoral votes based on the states where one has taken a plurality of the popular vote, so this system disadvantages third-party candidates with a broad base of support and favors those candidates with strong regional support. Thus, Ross Perot could win 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 without winning a single state or electoral vote, while States' Rights nominee Strom Thurmond took 7.3 percent of the electoral vote in 1948 while winning only 2.4 percent of the popular vote. For more on the electoral college, go here.
- Public financing of presidential campaigns. Under the Presidential Public Funding Program, a third-party candidate receives funds for his or her campaign only after proving some success in a presidential election. If a party's candidate wins five percent of the popular vote, that party will receive some post-election reimbursement and then will get some funding automatically in the next election, which is why Ralph Nader of the Green Party wanted to win at least five percent of the vote in 2000 and why Pat Buchanan sought the Reform Party's nomination that same year.
- Ballot access laws. Third-party candidates must establish organizations and efforts to get themselves and their parties on the ballots in most if not all of the states. Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy's 1976 independent campaign was noteworthy for successfully challenging many states' ballot access laws, even though he ultimately took less than 1 percent of the popular vote.
- Participation in events such as presidential debates. Since 1988, presidential debates have been organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-partisan organization that invites candidates to a series of debates based on pre-established criteria. The Commission's criteria has been criticized for setting overly high standards for third-party candidate participation; for example, Ross Perot was invited in 1992 at the request of the Clinton and Bush campaigns, but was not invited in 1996. For more on debates, go here.
- Fears of a deadlock. If no presidential candidate wins a plurality of the electoral vote, then such a presidential election would be decided by the House of Representatives in a special, complicated procedure by which all the newly-elected representatives vote as state delegations, and an absolute majority of state delegations is needed for election. Ross Perot himself raised the possibility of a deadlock to help explain why he briefly decided to drop out of the 1992 presidential election, though he did re-enter subsequently.
Non-Presidential Elections
Third-party candidates have had more definitive success in non-presidential elections, in part because candidates can sometimes win by taking a plurality of the popular vote, rather than having to win a majority of the electoral vote, and because they can focus on a smaller pool of potential voters. Still, there have no more than two third-party governors at the same time since the 1960s, no more than two third-party Senators since the 1940s, and no more than one or two third-party members of the House of Representatives since the 1940s.
As of 2002, before the November elections, the only third party elected officials at high federal or state positions were:
- Federal
- U.S. Senate (1 out of 100) : James Jeffords of Vermont (who switched from the Republican party to independent status in May 2001, throwing control of the Senate back to the Democratic Party)
- U.S. House of Representatives (1 out of 435) : Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
- State
- Governors (2 out of 50) : Jesse Ventura (Minnesota Reform Party, Minnesota) and Angus S. King Jr., (Independent, Maine)
- State Senates : only two out of 50 states had any third-party state senators. Maine had 1 out of 35 seats and Minnesota had 3 out of 67; none of Nevada's state senators are party-affiliated.
- State Houses : only five out of 49 states with a state house had any third-party members. Georgia had 1 out of 180 seats, Maine had 1 out of 151, New Hampshire had 2 out of 400, Vermont had 5 out of 150, and Virginia had 2 out of 100. Nebraska does not have a state house.
Sources: Information on the pre-election 2002 partisan composition of the U.S. Senate is available via the Senate on-line here, on the U.S. House of Representatives here, on state governors via the National Governors' Association here, and on state legislatures via the National Conference of State Legislatures here. Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus, Third Parties in America (Princeton University Press, 1996, second edition). Selecting the President: from 1789 to 1996 (Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1997). Micah L. Sifry, Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America (Routledge, 2002). Some information on the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections is available via the Federal Election Commission, on-line here.
|
|
|
Index / Home
FootnoteTV
Footnote Fahrenheit
Footnote Media
Issues
Cases
Resources
Footnote Comics
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Election 2004
Issues
|
|