Dealignment

Last updated

Dealignment, in political science, is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it. It is contrasted with political realignment.

Contents

Many scholars argue that the trends in elections in the United States over the last several decades are best characterized as dealignment, evident in the portion of Americans identifying with a political party declining sharply between 1964 and 1976 from approximately 75 percent to 63 percent. [1] It is also believed the United Kingdom has become dealigned from social class over the past three decades.

Dealignment does not refer to an individual losing their party affiliation, but a widespread trend as many people formally abandon the party to which they had been previously tied. Essentially one ceases voting for the political candidates that are formally sponsored by that party.

Dealignment can be seen in the rise of independent candidates. In dealignment, unlike realignment, voters are not switching from one major party to another. They are abandoning all the dominant parties but not their democratic voice. Rather, they place their votes in independent candidates. [2]

Partisan dealignment

Partisan dealignment is a process in which individuals become less partisan in terms of their support for a particular political party. [3]

The last decades, since the 1970s, have seen an increase in the process of partisan dealignment in many countries as voters become less connected to their political party. [4] This process can result in fewer votes for the major parties, such as in the UK, or an increase in voters that vote for the opposite party due to their loss of partisanship. This dealignment shows that short term factors might play a larger role than usual in whether a candidate receives a vote from someone of their party. Several factors can be attributed to partisan dealignment, such as a greater political awareness and socialisation, intensive mass media coverage and decline of deference; disillusionment both with parties and politicians, and most importantly, the poor performance of government. Voters have also become more inclined to vote based on specific issues such as Brexit, immigration or the economy rather than voting based on a partisan attachment.

Prior to the 1970s there had been clear examples of partisan dealignment in the UK. For example, in the three elections which the Conservatives won in the 1950s, they received nearly 50% of the vote in those elections. [5] However, in recent years loyalties towards the UK's main parties - the Labour Party and the Conservative Party - has reduced. This was seen in the 2019 general election when Labour lost votes to the Conservatives over the issue of Brexit. [6]

Class dealignment

Class dealignment is a process in which members of a social class no longer vote for the party that their class is aligned with. In the UK, traditionally, working class voters support Labour and middle class voters support the Conservatives; an example of class dealignment would be if the working class began to view themselves as lower middle class.

Class dealignment took place in Britain post-1960s, when people were more likely to pursue tertiary education, have professional jobs and consequently more affluence.[ citation needed ] As a result, working-class voters who would traditionally have voted Labour may instead vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat. This happens as people lose their traditional class loyalties to a particular party. An example of this would be the Barking and Dagenham results in the 2006 local elections, in which a traditional Labour area voted for the extreme-right British National Party.[ citation needed ]

A recent example of class dealignment was during the 2019 UK general election in which the "Red Wall", a term first used by James Kanagasooriam in relation to the traditional Labour seats in the North of England, [7] no longer voted along class lines. The result was that traditional Labour seats, such as Great Grimsby, voted to elect a Conservative MP for the first time in decades. [8] In addition, in 2019 the Conservative received the highest number of votes across every social class, including 41% of DE voters who traditionally voted Labour. [9] This illustrates that people in the UK no longer vote in accordance to their class.

The 2019 general election highlights that specific issues within politics can create a forced realignment to a different party for a short time as the current issues are viewed to be more important than voting based on traditional class lines. Boris Johnson ran his campaign with the strong stance to "Get Brexit Done" while Labour were seen to be unclear on their stance towards Brexit and the EU. The majority of the "Red Wall" are anti-conservative but pro-Brexit and this creates the forced realignment as a high percentage of voter's belief in Brexit was more important than voting along their class line leading to results so shocking and so against traditional voting. This emphasises how a specific issue can cause class dealignment if the cause that a certain class believes in outweighs their feelings towards their traditional party.

An example of there being class realignment is in the US where, in the 2020 and 2024 Presidential Elections, Donald Trump, a Republican, lost support amongst wealthy fiscally conservative and socially moderate voters in the suburbs, but made huge gains with Latino voters nationwide especially in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, in Los Angeles and in the Imperial Valley in California, in the Latino-heavy areas of New York City, and the Latino-heavy areas of Chicago and Cook County. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reagan Democrat</span> Democratic voters who supported Republican president Ronald Reagan

A Reagan Democrat is a traditionally Democratic voter in the United States, referring to working class residents who supported Republican presidential candidates Ronald Reagan in the 1980 and/or the 1984 presidential elections, and/or George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidential election. The term Reagan Democrat remains part of the lexicon in American political jargon because of Reagan's continued widespread popularity among a large segment of the electorate.

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. Often also referred to as a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election, in the academic fields of political science and political history. 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. As well as 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.

<i>The American Voter</i> 1960 book on political partisanship

The American Voter, published in 1960, is a seminal study of voting behavior in the United States, authored by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, colleagues at the University of Michigan. Among its controversial conclusions, based on one of the first comprehensive studies of election survey data, is that most voters cast their ballots primarily on the basis of partisan identification, and that independent voters are actually the least involved in and attentive to politics. This theory of voter choice became known as the Michigan Model. It was later extended to the United Kingdom by David Butler and Donald Stokes in Political change in Britain.

An independent voter, often also called an unaffiliated voter or non-affiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ivor Crewe</span> British political scientist

Sir Ivor Martin Crewe DL FAcSS was until 2020 the Master of University College, Oxford, and President of the Academy of Social Sciences. He was previously Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex and also a Professor in the Department of Government at Essex.

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual is affiliated with. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Party System</span> Phase in U.S. electoral politics

The Sixth Party System is the era in United States politics following the Fifth Party System. As with any periodization, opinions differ on when the Sixth Party System may have begun, with suggested dates ranging from the late 1960s to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Nonetheless, there is agreement among scholars that the Sixth Party System features strong division between the Democratic and Republican parties, which are rooted in socioeconomic, class, cultural, religious, educational and racial issues, and debates over the proper role of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cleavage (politics)</span> Sociological concept

In political science and sociology, a cleavage is a historically determined social or cultural line which divides citizens within a society into groups with differing political interests, resulting in political conflict among these groups. Social or cultural cleavages thus become political cleavages once they get politicized as such. Cleavage theory accordingly argues that political cleavages predominantly determine a country's party system as well as the individual voting behavior of citizens, dividing them into voting blocs. These blocs are distinguished by similar socio-economic characteristics, who vote and view the world in a similar way. It is distinct from other common political theories on voting behavior in the sense that it focuses on aggregate and structural patterns instead of individual voting behaviors.

The Michigan model is a theory of voter choice, based primarily on sociological and party identification factors. Originally proposed by political scientists, beginning with an investigation of the 1952 Presidential election, at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Centre. These scholars developed and refined an approach to voting behaviour in terms of a voter's psychological attachment to a political party, acknowledging cleavages on a group level, which would be continued over the next two decades.

Conservatism in the United Kingdom is related to its counterparts in other Western nations, but has a distinct tradition and has encompassed a wide range of theories over the decades of conservatism. The Conservative Party, which forms the mainstream right-wing party in Britain, has developed many different internal factions and ideologies.

Voting behavior refers to how people decide how to vote. This decision is shaped by a complex interplay between an individual voter's attitudes as well as social factors. Voter attitudes include characteristics such as ideological predisposition, party identity, degree of satisfaction with the existing government, public policy leanings, and feelings about a candidate's personality traits. Social factors include race, religion and degree of religiosity, social and economic class, educational level, regional characteristics, and gender. The degree to which a person identifies with a political party influences voting behavior, as does social identity. Voter decision-making is not a purely rational endeavor but rather is profoundly influenced by personal and social biases and deeply held beliefs as well as characteristics such as personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors. Voting advice applications and avoidance of wasted votes through strategic voting can impact voting behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017 United Kingdom general election</span>

The 2017 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday 8 June 2017, two years after the previous general election in 2015; it was the first since 1992 to be held on a day that did not coincide with any local elections. The governing Conservative Party led by the prime minister Theresa May remained the largest single party in the House of Commons but lost its small overall majority, resulting in the formation of a Conservative minority government with a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 United Kingdom general election</span>

The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday 12 December 2019, with 47,074,800 registered voters entitled to vote to elect 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Commons. The governing Conservative Party, led by the prime minister Boris Johnson, won a landslide victory with a majority of 80 seats, a net gain of 48, on 43.6 per cent of the popular vote, the highest percentage for any party since the 1979 general election, though with a narrower popular vote margin than that achieved by the Labour Party over the Conservatives at the 1997 general election. This was the second national election to be held in 2019 in the United Kingdom, the first being the 2019 European Parliament election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom</span> 2019 election of members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom

The 2019 European Parliament election was the United Kingdom's component of the 2019 European Parliament election. It was held on Thursday 23 May 2019 and the results announced on Sunday 26 and Monday 27 May 2019, after all the other EU countries had voted. This was the United Kingdom's final participation in a European Parliament election before leaving the European Union on 31 January 2020; it was also the last election to be held under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 before its repeal under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and was the first European election in the United Kingdom since 1999 to be held on a day that did not coincide with any local elections. This was the first of two national elections held in the United Kingdom in 2019; the 2019 general election occurred six-and-a-half months later in December 2019.

The result in favour of Brexit of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum is one of the most significant political events for Britain during the 21st century. The debate provoked major consideration to an array of topics, argued up-to, and beyond, the referendum on 23 June 2016. The referendum was originally conceived by David Cameron as a means to defeat the anti-EU faction within his own party by having it fail. Factors in the vote included sovereignty, immigration, the economy and anti-establishment politics, amongst various other influences. The result of the referendum was that 51.8% of the votes were in favour of leaving the European Union. The formal withdrawal from the EU took place at 23:00 on 31 January 2020, almost three years after Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on 29 March 2017. This page provides an overarching analysis of the different arguments which were presented by both the Leave and Remain campaigns.

A by-election for the House of Commons constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham in Lincolnshire, England, was held on 8 December 2016. It was triggered by the resignation of the Conservative member of parliament (MP) Stephen Phillips, who left Parliament on 4 November 2016 due to policy differences with the Conservative government led by the prime minister, Theresa May, over Brexit – the British withdrawal from the European Union (EU). The Conservatives nominated Caroline Johnson, a paediatrician, to replace Phillips; she won the by-election with more than 50 per cent of the vote, a sizable majority. The Conservatives' vote share fell slightly compared to the result at the previous general election in 2015.

The open–closed political spectrum, an alternative to the standard left–right political spectrum, is used to describe a cleavage observed in political systems in Europe and North America in the 21st century. Under this view, parties and voters are understood on a single-axis political spectrum from open to closed. Groups, leaders and citizens on either end of this spectrum draw from both traditionally left- and right-wing ideas and values. For example, closed parties usually hold conventionally right-wing views on social issues but may support the left-wing policies of market intervention and redistribution of wealth. Open groups, leaders and citizens can hold left-wing or progressivist opinions on many issues but be staunchly in favour of the traditionally more right-wing policies of free trade. Depending on context, open–closed can be a replacement to the left–right political spectrum or a second axis on a political compass.

The 2019 United Kingdom general election of 12 December 2019 saw many new pieces of politics-related jargon enter popular use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Red wall (British politics)</span> Constituencies that typically vote Labour

The red wall is a term used in British politics to describe the UK Parliament constituencies in the Midlands and Northern England that have historically supported the Labour Party. At the 2019 general election, many of these parliamentary seats were won by the Conservative Party, with the media describing the red wall as having "turned blue".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative partisanship</span>

Negative partisanship is the tendency of some voters to form their political opinions primarily in opposition to political parties they dislike. Whereas traditional partisanship involves supporting the policy positions of one's own party, its negative counterpart in turn means opposing those positions of a disliked party. It has been claimed to be the cause of severe polarization in American politics. It has also been studied in the Canadian context, as well as in Australia and New Zealand. Cross-national studies indicate that negative partisanship undermines public satisfaction with democracy, which threatens democratic stability. Traditional partisans, on the other hand, are more likely to support their country's democracy, which promotes democratic stability.

References

  1. Northpoth, Rusk. Partisan dealignment in the American electorate: Itemizing the deductions since 1964. American Political Science Review. pp. 522–537.
  2. Muscato, Christopher. "Dealignment in Politics". Study.com. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  3. Clarke, Stewart. Dealignment of degree: Partisan change in Britain 1974-83. The journal of Politics. pp. 689–718.
  4. Hermann Schmitt. "Partisanship in nine western democracies." Political Parties and Partisanship: Social Identity and Individual Attitudes. Routledge. (11 June 2014). pp. 75. ISBN   978-1-134-04428-3.
  5. Crewe, I (1977). Partisan Dealignment in Britain 1964 - 1974. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Ford, Robert (2020). Brexit Land. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 302.
  7. Mattinson, Deborah (2020). Beyond the Red Wall: Why Labour Lost, How the Conservatives Won and What Will Happen Next?. London: Biteback Publishing Limited. p. 4.
  8. Burtenshaw, Ronan (2020). "Why We Lost". Tribune (Winter 2020).
  9. MORI, IpSOS. "How the voters voted in the 2019 election" (PDF). Ipsos MORI. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  10. Zhang, Christine. "By numbers: how the US voted in 2020". Financial Times. Retrieved 24 January 2021.