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 Presidential Election, 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> Political ideology

A Reagan Democrat is a traditionally Democratic voter in the Northern United States, referring to working class residents who supported Republican presidential candidates Ronald Reagan in the 1980 or the 1984 presidential elections, 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, often called a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election, in the academic fields of political science and political history, is a set of sharp changes in party ideology, issues, party leaders, regional and demographic bases of power of political parties, and the structure or rules of the political system, such as voter eligibility or financing. The changes result in a new political power structure that lasts for decades, replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections and occasionally those of other countries. American 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 Populist and Progressive Eras were replaced by the New Deal-era issues of New Deal liberalism and modern conservatism. Realigning elections typically separate party systems—with 1828, for example, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US. 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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Party System</span> 1896–1928 phase in development of US electoral politics

The Fourth Party System was the political party system in the United States from about 1896 to 1932 that was dominated by the Republican Party, except the 1912 split in which Democrats captured the White House and held it for eight years.

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is affiliation with a political party. 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> Era in US 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 socio-economic, class, cultural, 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. 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.

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.

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

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 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> Election to the 58th United Kingdom House of Commons

The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 12 December 2019. It resulted in the Conservative Party receiving a landslide majority of 80 seats. The Conservatives made a net gain of 48 seats and won 43.6% of the popular vote – the highest percentage for any party since 1979.

<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, held on Thursday 23 May 2019 and the results were 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, and 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.

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, but he misjudged the level of public support for leaving, particularly amongst Labour Party voters. Factors 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, used to describe the cleavage in political systems in Europe and North America in the 21st century. In this system, parties and voters are arranged on a single axis from open to closed. Each side draws 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 parties can hold left-wing or progressive opinions on many issues but be staunchly in favour of the traditionally more rightist policies of free trade. Depending on context, open–closed can be a replacement to left–right 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> Set of British constituencies which have historically been strongholds of the Labour Party

The red wall is a term used in British politics to describe constituencies in the Midlands and Northern England which historically supported the Labour Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political polarization in the United States</span> Divisions among people with different political ideologies in the United States

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

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.