How do political parties work in the US?

[Lokomotive293]

I'm interested in the general structure and inner works of political parties in the US, because they seem to be very different from political parties in mainland Europe, and I feel that is an important part of understanding the way a political system works. I tried to google it, but I couldn't really find anything good on the topic. Also, how does that affect the perception of the concept of the Communist Party?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm interested in the general structure and inner works of political parties in the US, because they seem to be very different from political parties in mainland Europe, and I feel that is an important part of understanding the way a political system works. I tried to google it, but I couldn't really find anything good on the topic. Also, how does that affect the perception of the concept of the Communist Party?Well there are a lot of differences from the framework of the electoral system to the way the parties operate specifically. Is there a particular aspect you're interested in?

Other than some of the technical details (though connected to it) the specific thing about the US electoral system is that it tends to be dominated by two parties. These are bourgoise parties unapologetically and most of their popular appeals are directed towards different aspects of petty-bourgoise ideologies though they will also try to appeal to different subsections of workers sometimes.

The effect for workers is a dampening one on class confidence and demands as workers either throw their hands in the air and think "well I just don't know enough about politics/it doesn't change anything anyway" (many people - and specifically a lot of workers - just don't vote in the US... 40% of eligable voters or so) or accomodate their wishes for "realistic" options put forth by the Democratic Party ("we'd like to stop the war, but realistically..." "we'ew all going to have to tighten our belts to get through this recession, there's no other option"). The non-voting by workers is celebreated by some on the Left, but really it's not a principled rejection of electoral politics IMO, just a sense of helplessness and pessimism.

Socialist and Communit 3rd parties of various kinds have probably been the most regualr electoral challengers to the two parties for the 20th century, though now there are some more right-wing 3rd parties that have a higer profile than has generally been true in the past. Most people on this site from the US can tell you about some of the problems with these parties, but even when there have been some decent efforts, the way the electroal college system and the two-party system tend to disfavor such challenges outside of a broader movement.

[Colfax]

I would be extremely hard pressed to give anything that felt like an authoritative description of the structure of American political parties. The scale of them is simply too enormous and the interest groups that lie behind them do not exactly wield influence transparently. Beyond that, there are fifty states and different electoral laws, bodies and procedures in each state.

The first thing that strikes me as different from the European context is the system of primaries/caucuses for selecting party candidates to stand in the general election. In many states, to be able to vote in a party's primary you need to be a member of that party. When we register to vote in the US there are boxes to check off in order to affiliate with a particular party. The practical result is that I think party membership is much more widespread here than in Europe.

One thought is to look up the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. These are national bodies that serve a coordinating function. But there are countless other institutions within the parties that do the same thing. From congressional campaign committees to partisan governors' associations.

To understand American politics, the main thing to do would be to get a general sense of how spectacularly expensive it is to run a campaign here. That and the major structural impediments to third parties, with non-proportional representation as the main instance. Our two parties are giant behemoths that suck everything that arises in our sorry excuse for political life into themselves. It's depressing.

A classic adage about American third parties is that they are like bees: they sting once and then they die. Meaning as soon as one gets enough votes to cost one of the big two an election, policies and tactics are shifted enough to suck the new party's constituents into one of the major electoral coalitions. So the revolt of Dixiecrats against national Democratic support for civil rights legislation destabilized things, but rather than forming a viable new party just became the base for the Nixon/Reagan Republican Right. More recently, Ross Perot's third party runs in 1992 and 1996 lead to George W. Bush's self-branding as a 'compassionate conservative', supposedly distinct from the heartlessness of Reagan. Ralph Nader's Green Party run in 2000, which many Democrats blame for Bush's "election", produced some of the netroots, movement liberalism in the Democratic coalition.

I can't draw any especially intelligent conclusions about what this means for Socialist or Communist parties here. I don't think they are viable as electoral bodies. The major third parties here tend to be on the right now: specifically the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party. The Green Party is eco-social democratic. They get votes but don't have much in the way of strategy.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

In addition to what JH said, it is important to note that the electoral system, unlike a parliamentary one with proportionate representation, generally has a "winner take all" system for most seats. This then prevents or greatly discourages splitting on the part of either party as the party unaffected by splits or internal strife has a much greater chance of winning. The system also causes both parties to attempt to create as large a coalition as possible by appealing to the political "middle" while simultaneously throwing bones to minority viewpoints to ensure their continued support of either party.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The two dominant parties in the US are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.They function primarily as electoral vehicles for local, regional and national candidates. Nationally both parties are heavily connected with the corporate sector.

Both parties have networks of grassroots activists who have little actual control over party policy.The media created Tea Party is an exception.Having said this US parties are not the mass based ideological class oriented parties as in Europe where in Germany, as I understand traditionally the SPD-working class.Free Democrats-liberal bourgeois/Christian Democrats-Catholics and conservative bourgeois


Traditionally the Democrats got their support from urban working classes, Catholic and Jewish minorities and African Americans. They were the party of the "little guy". The Republicans got their support in rural areas, small town business people, the military and the corporate sector.

The Republicans were always something of a minority party.

This system has morphed a lot on recent decades. Both parties seem to have lost much of their traditional constituency as both parties have moved much further to the right. Both parties have fully embraced neo-liberalism.

The US South, the defeated Confederacy, was traditionally Democratic. This was part of the "New Deal coalition" supposedly an alliance between southern whites and urban working class people. This system began to buckle in the 1960s and finally collapsed under Nixon's "southern strategy", appealing to white racism. Today white people in the South are generally Republican.

The Democrats now use identity politics;LGBT rights, especially, while the Republicans appeal to religious fundamentalism, patriarchy and barely concealed racism.

Different sectors of the US ruling class support different parties.Real estate and high tech generally support the Dems. The military industrial complex-a vast network of defense contractors and regions dependent on them, support the Republicans.Finance capital, Wall Street traditionally supported the Republicans but now seem to be embedded closely to the Dems.Goldman Sachs seemed to support Obama but shifted their support to Romney. Of course they would have been very happy no matter who won.

Electoral laws both locally and national make it very difficult to run third party candidates.There is also a near total media blackout and/or demonization of third party candidates

Both parties play a "good cop/bad cop" role. During a Republican administration the Dems can rightfully denounce the horrible policies of the Repubs. They function to channel discontent into electoralism. "Today we march/tomorrow we vote". When the Dems then get into power they do the same thing, only with more progressive sounding PR.The Dems have a large layer of liberal intellectuals who can be counted on to defend or at least but a good spin on whatever they do.

The Dems and liberals are actually much quicker to crack down in dissent against the system.The Ocuppy movement was largely crushed by Democratic mayors and was coordinated from the White House.

The Repubs appeal to an angry and confused petty bougoiuse layer who somehow feel that "socialistic" governbment policies are favoring black and brown people over them. They appeal to a deeply entrenched racial and cultural paranoia in US society, the "Paranoid Style of American Politics".

Both parties are rapidly losing their supposed constituencies. There is now a huge space opening up to the left of the Dems. This can only get larger as Barry and his friends cooperate w/the Repubs in cutting "entitlements: like Medicare and Social Security and European style austerity comes to the US.

The CPUSA was close to being a mass party in the for a time in the mid 1930s and the Trotskyist SWP also had a chance at reaching mass level. Decades of intense Cold War propaganda, legal and extra legal harassment and marginalization of leftists and a near total blackout in the corporate media marginalozed the left. Today the radical left in the US is tiny.

[Comrade Alex]

To make it simple its a two party dictatorship jk
But yea two party dominant system third parties have to maintain a 5,000 voters quota in orderto be registered
And that's it pretty much

[Lokomotive293]

Thank you all for your answers, they were very helpful already :) I just want to ask a few more specific questions, to make it a little easier to understand what I'm looking for. I already got some good answers to some of them as well, but maybe someone can elaborate a little more:

How does inner-party democracy work, if there is such a thing? How do political parties decide on their platform, how do they nominate their candidates, and how much control do the parties have over their representatives? Also, how do you become a member of a party, and what duties/rights do you generally have if you do? What legal requirements are there for forming a party, and what legal requirements are there for "inner-party democracy", i.e. for how a political party needs to work? And, my last question, to which I already got a lot of good answers: How does that affect Communists in the US?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thank you all for your answers, they were very helpful already :) I just want to ask a few more specific questions, to make it a little easier to understand what I'm looking for. I already got some good answers to some of them as well, but maybe someone can elaborate a little more:

How does inner-party democracy work, if there is such a thing? How do political parties decide on their platform, how do they nominate their candidates, and how much control do the parties have over their representatives? Also, how do you become a member of a party, and what duties/rights do you generally have if you do? What legal requirements are there for forming a party, and what legal requirements are there for "inner-party democracy", i.e. for how a political party needs to work? And, my last question, to which I already got a lot of good answers: How does that affect Communists in the US?

These are good questions and I think some of the changes in the ways the parties actually relate to the public have changed quite a bit in the post-war era. In the US, public politics are pretty rare outside of election season (which is about a year or so long!) and college campuses where radicals but also liberals (and sometimes, but increasingly the right) and NGOs do real outreach. There are no neighborhood "party offices" for the major parties although in cities, the parties will set up store-front offices during the last couple of months of the national election. Most worker's contact with the two parties is through passive media like TV and the internet and most big liberal groups organize the same way, or hire paid (not well and sometimes interns) petitioners if they need to do actual outreach. There are no meetings, no debates, the public face of the parties that is presented to the population is a series of managed PR press conferences and such. Since the working class is so politically under-confident and demoralized and since many people just don't vote, there's little reason to do actual outreach. As a consaquence, in elections you constantly hear about candidates battling for "swing voters" - by which they don't mean disaffected voters but conservatives who switch between the two parties based on whatever miniscule difference in that election.

I think on the one-hand the "passive outreach" shows that the parties recognize that the voting population is a "captive audience" and will always go with the "lesser-evil" or just vote against whichever party is in power if there is mass discontent. On the other hand it shows how US elections are really focused on strategies well out of the reach of even grassroots candidates for the major parties. This means anyone who actually gets into an office - even a low one - will have become so dependent on the party machinery and wealthy patrons (corporations and bourgeois political foundations) that they will be unable to rock the boat and find the funds necessary to make a real mainstream effort the next time around.

This is why I think any viable protest candidacy (viable in the sense of even being covered, not winning the election even) would have to be backed up by a vibrent movement of some kind that would have the ability to force their issues into the spotlight through protests and organizing and also have a volunteer base that could organize and counter the overwhelming effects of expensive mainstream campaign methods (not to mention a virtual blackout of any voices (liberal or left) outside of the Democrats and Republicans in media coverage of "politics". For this reason, I don't think the left should see that as a primary strategy (even putting aside the issues of electoralism) but I think it will be a serious thing to consider if various movements begin to cohere outside of the 2 parties influence (though I think the effectiveness of such a strategy would depend on the conditions of the movement and wider political sentiment).

Oh, as far as platform and candidacies go - again, this has changed since the 1940s - it's basically all decided beforehand and "ratified" by people selected from across the country by the party to be convention delegates - I'd imagine that these are probably local party "activists" by which I mean they may have worked in support of some campaigns or just gave some money to them. They always look on TV like drunken middle-management types at a business convention that they are treating as a paid vacation. Before WWII, there were actual debates and actual contested party candidates, though this was still pretty limited to debates within the aims of the ruling class. The 1960s was probably the last time there were even any real attempts at changing a parties platform from their conventions. The Democrats had both civil rights and segregationist factions trying to organize and influence the direction of the party at the same time.

The Obama campaign in 2008 was an exception to this in that there was more of a focus on grassroots campaigning. Part of this may have been the recognition that for a black candidate to get far, they would have to tap into the generally non-voting urban and also heavily minority and/or youth population. The pre-nomination campaining did have a "flavor" of real political organizing and local volunteers were allowed to do pretty much what they wanted - but when the nomination happened, the national organizing took over and turned the largely organically supportive effort into a regular machine (I remember reading about dissatisfaction, among progressives who started their own support efforts, when they were suddenly being told what they could and could not say and what to do). Still that election did actually (though erroneously) tap into some pent-up aspirations among young workers and showed that contrary to the media stereotypes of lack of voting being due to "apathy" it's actually due to widespread alienation from the election process and mainstream politics which gives few workers any reason to vote (unless they are sufficiently scared that "the other guy" might win).

So I think because there is a vaccume at the street-level regarding politics, if movements begin to pick-up, grassroots organizing could make a huge impact pretty quickly (protest candidates or straight-up political movements). But I think this also depends on if people see this as "worth it" and "viable" movement efforts which is probably the biggest barrier to rebuilding a radical tradition in the US: the internalization among workers that there is no alternative (which the two party system re-enforces). And if that happens and we see a return of grassroots politics, then most likely, the two parties will also return to those methods to try and regain their monopoly on perceptions of what's possible politically. Until then, they don't need to - they don't care if we vote or not because we really have no other option given what's on offer.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well there is the official way of doing things which one may study in a civics or political science class. This has little to do with the way things really work. There is very little mechanism for democracy or accountability in the US party system.

Okay one becomes a member of a party by registering as a member. This varies from state to state. Most states have a primary in which each party chooses a candidate from within the party.At this time or beforehand one can register as a Democrat or Republican. In some states one can register as a Green or another party. Anyway registering for a party entitles you to vote for a candidate in that party's election, that's all.

Neither party has much of a mechanism for citizen involvement beyond that. Both parties do have local networks of activists who are often to the left or the right of the party itself.Parties have statewide conventions where candidates are nominated. Usually this is highly influenced by state and local business interests who control needed campaign funds.To a large extent candidates are often chosen behind the scenes among politicians and business elites.

During presidential elections state each party has a system of primaries in which the party's candidates for POTUS run. In 2012 Obama was the Dems nominee so he ran unopposed. There were several candidates to be the Republican nominee, most of whom literally appeared to be mentally ill. The campaign itself was highly manipulated by selective media coverage and mostly availability of campaign funds. A Supreme Court decision in 2010 now allows corporations and private individuals to basically provide unlimited funding. US candidates are, quite obviously, bought.

There are two national political conventions every four years.These were originally designed to choose the presidential candidate and could be the scene of raucous if corrupt political infighting. Now all decisions are already made way ahead of time, the "conventions" are phony and sometimes bizarre TV media spectacles which few people watch.

There is very little real democracy in either party. Both parties, but especially the Dems, have a large network of fundraising companies, think tanks, PR firms and NGOs which are an unofficial part of the party.

As far as legally forming a party, I don't know. Before getting on a ballot, rules vary from state to state. Generally the system is designed to make it very difficult for candidates who are not from the two corporate parties.

A radical leftist candidate for the most part will get no media coverage and (obviously) no funding from any corporation.On a local level it possible to get some success.



Most socialists would see participating in an election as a means of educating people about socialist ideas, not to win an election. Voting is only one element, and a rather small element at that, of political participation, but ruling class ideology makes it seem the only way.

http://votesawant.org/

[Geiseric]

It's a big bag of old white rich dicks. Both of the Dems and Repubs are funded by the bourgeoisie, and have been since they started. There is a certain absence of a working class party which the left likes to ignore.

[Skyhilist]

To try to sum things up without being verbose: basically two very similar parties (democrats and republicans) have a stranglehold on everything and are bought by all the corporations. Corporations control everything using these two parties as puppets. The media, in collusion with bourgeois interests, highlights the slight differences between the parties to make them appear on opposite ends of the spectrum so people get the illusion of choice when they go to the polls every 4 years. Ultimately, it's a plutocracy that's very good a thought control and has hundreds of millions thinking they live under a democracy.

[MarxSchmarx]

There have been a lot of very good replies.

In addition to all that has been said, I would strongly recommend taking the time to listen to this:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

The solutions they suggest are reformist nonsense, but the fundamental, nitty-gritty reporting is sound.

It goes into a lot of detail of the mechanics of how exactly in America politicians are incredibly dependent on funders, and that parties operate largely by serving as the intermediary between politicians and their contributors. The radio story talks about "call centers" and quotas that American politicians must meet to help the party. It is through their control of access to funders that American political parties can corral, manage and control their membership, particularly those in elected office.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The first thing that strikes me as different from the European context is the system of primaries/caucuses for selecting party candidates to stand in the general election. In many states, to be able to vote in a party's primary you need to be a member of that party. When we register to vote in the US there are boxes to check off in order to affiliate with a particular party. The practical result is that I think party membership is much more widespread here than in Europe.

A number of posters here claim that the US is dominated by "two parties." The reality is, though, that it's dominated by no such thing at all. Neither what calls itself the "Democratic Party" nor what calls itself the "Republican Party" is a political party at all.

"Membership" is better called primary voter registration, because it's a one-and-done deal.

It's little different from the crumbling UK SWP's "membership" recruitment campaigns.

[Red Nightmare]

Well, here in the United States there are two main political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party that have a complete monopoly on public office here. Both are quite reactionary and overtly support capitalism and American imperialism. Due to the plurality or winner take all electoral system where anyone who wins 51% of the vote wins all of the representatives for a state, only the two largest political parties can win elections. Third parties have almost no chance of winning to the point where the term "third party" is used derogatively.

And it is not just revolutionary parties that have trouble winning elections in the United States, even reactionaries like Pat Buchanan and the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties have failed to garner any more than 1-5% of the vote.

It's really quite depressing when you come right down to it and I think that is why less than half of the United States voting age population actually bothers to vote.