“We the people of the United States…” so starts our Constitution. And what an eclectic and motley group of people we are. So it is that the framers of the pre-eminent law of our land saw fit to build rules into our democratic game of government that would protect us all from a simple majority formed from any group conveniently aligned hell bent on having things their way at the expense of the current majority. Despite their significant proportion of US population, particularly in cities and at one time throughout the South, blacks have not played a significant role in setting the national political agenda within our two-party system of government. In his book, Uneasy Alliances, political scientist Paul Frymer put forth his theory of electoral
…show more content…
“Racial cleavage” as Frymer refers to it was an important factor in the Founding Fathers design of and preference for the two-party system. The winner-takes-all Electoral College system established for national presidential elections encourages national party leaders to promote positions appealing to a majority of the voters in each state (Frymer 30, 93). As a result, the national popular vote and a simple majority have less significance in setting national policy and electing presidential candidates. Frymer believes that the spectrum of voters from liberal to conservative is a bell-shaped curve with the median voter squarely in the middle. This inherently drives both parties toward the moderate middle to seek the highest volume of voters required to capture a majority of the vote in any state. Frymer points out that “as a group, African American voters in the post-civil rights era tend generally to be more liberal that white voters, particularly on those issues most pertinent to the African American political agenda” (Frymer 30). As a result, blacks interests in areas such as civil rights and affirmative action are not generally part of the national party political agenda because of the left leaning tendencies of the …show more content…
Frymer directly states that it is not “appropriate” to consider other minority groups in the same way he has presented the case for African Americans (Frymer 181). Frymer points out the breadth and depth of racism faced by blacks throughout America’s history is unique and there is not the extent of historical political experience or data with other minorities to apply the same support for electoral capture. That said, Frymer acknowledges he is constantly questioned whether other groups “fit the profile of electoral capture” (Frymer 182). He touches on Irish-Catholics in the 1800’s, farmer and labor workers in the early 1900’s, and Jews in the middle to late 20th century providing very little information to build a case for electoral capture of any of these minority groups. Frymer goes on to spend 7 pages discussing the gay and lesbian voters in the Democratic party and another 4 pages on the Christian Right in the Republican party, but clearly Frymer himself is not convinced there is any real case to be made for electoral capture by the two-party system of these groups either. What is most puzzling is Frymer’s reluctance to apply his theory to the growing Hispanic US citizenry saying only “Mexican Americans are an interesting group with regard to electoral capture” (Frymer 185). Interesting? More like critical and vital.
“Racial cleavage” as Frymer refers to it was an important factor in the Founding Fathers design of and preference for the two-party system. The winner-takes-all Electoral College system established for national presidential elections encourages national party leaders to promote positions appealing to a majority of the voters in each state (Frymer 30, 93). As a result, the national popular vote and a simple majority have less significance in setting national policy and electing presidential candidates. Frymer believes that the spectrum of voters from liberal to conservative is a bell-shaped curve with the median voter squarely in the middle. This inherently drives both parties toward the moderate middle to seek the highest volume of voters required to capture a majority of the vote in any state. Frymer points out that “as a group, African American voters in the post-civil rights era tend generally to be more liberal that white voters, particularly on those issues most pertinent to the African American political agenda” (Frymer 30). As a result, blacks interests in areas such as civil rights and affirmative action are not generally part of the national party political agenda because of the left leaning tendencies of the …show more content…
Frymer directly states that it is not “appropriate” to consider other minority groups in the same way he has presented the case for African Americans (Frymer 181). Frymer points out the breadth and depth of racism faced by blacks throughout America’s history is unique and there is not the extent of historical political experience or data with other minorities to apply the same support for electoral capture. That said, Frymer acknowledges he is constantly questioned whether other groups “fit the profile of electoral capture” (Frymer 182). He touches on Irish-Catholics in the 1800’s, farmer and labor workers in the early 1900’s, and Jews in the middle to late 20th century providing very little information to build a case for electoral capture of any of these minority groups. Frymer goes on to spend 7 pages discussing the gay and lesbian voters in the Democratic party and another 4 pages on the Christian Right in the Republican party, but clearly Frymer himself is not convinced there is any real case to be made for electoral capture by the two-party system of these groups either. What is most puzzling is Frymer’s reluctance to apply his theory to the growing Hispanic US citizenry saying only “Mexican Americans are an interesting group with regard to electoral capture” (Frymer 185). Interesting? More like critical and vital.