Party Responsibility in the States: Some Causal Factors

Abstract

Pleas and programs for party responsibility are not new. It is remarkable, however, how little the discussion has advanced. I do not mean that I am surprised that the path of reform has been hard but that knowledge of the subject has not grown in proportion to the length of the discussion. Proponents believe party responsibility introduces desired qualities into the policy process and makes possible rational organization of the electorate in terms of policy. Not much has been done to provide adequate support for either of these propositions. In fact, it is hard to discover a serious effort to put these propositions in some form which would permit a partial but rigorous test. Opponents on the other hand conjure up visions of polarized parties, downtrodden minorities, and multipartyism as the fruits of party responsibility. They are able to make these improbable inferences by working with an exceedingly simple model, by ignoring the functions of party competition and the complex of factors which seem to shape party systems. Some observers less involved in the argument allow that the debate may have some value since it leads to notice of important realities. But, for them, proposed reforms are not to be taken seriously because they are Utopian in two senses: (1) sweeping and incalculable; and (2) out of reach. This view seems to overlook the fact that party responsibility is a matter of degree and that incremental reform is, at least, possible in principle. Finally, very little attention has been paid to factors which may promote or inhibit party responsibility.

Policy Responses to Citizen Attitudes

“…More recent studies have referred to this "Missing Piece" as the "attentive constituents" (Hedlund & Friesma, 1972;Boynton, Patterson, & Hedlund, 1969). Still other portions of the literature have asserted that political parties constitute this "Missing Piece of the Puzzle" (LeBlanc, 1969;Flinn, 1964).…”

Reapportionment and Public Policy: State Legislators' Perspectives*

“…Robeck's findings support the earlier positions of Malcolm Jewell (1966: 75) and Thomas Flinn (1964: 71) who argued that reapportionment would stimulate changes in the nature of party competition and responsiveness. In his study of party p>olitics in Ohio, Flinn (1964) concluded that increased party responsibility in the states was dependent "...on the spread of party competition and upon a sorting out of legislative constituencies so that districts represented by the respective parties are homogeneous. "…”