Search results

Analyzes the Republican party's national platform; why state parties supported the national agenda, how they were persuaded to do so, and how well state agendas reflected national goals; 1994 elections; US.

According to Joseph A. Schlesinger, modem American political parties are driven by the desire to win office, and policy objectives are secondary. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of minority legislative parties in the context of Schlesinger's market- based definition of political parties. The objective of this paper is to determine if institutional competition has similar consequences for legislative parties as individual competition has for individual candidates. Analysis of the senate minority parties in Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, Virginia and Ohio reveals that institutional interparty competition and the probability of gaining majority status have a dramatic effect on the nature, influence, organization and cohesion of minority parties. Noncompetitive minorities tend to give little emphasis to the external and campaign responsibilities of the party organization, are not penalized for their minority status, are poorly organized and tend not to vote along party lines. On the other hand, competitive minorities give great attention to the elections, are highly organized and vote in a cohesive manner. Ironically, increased corporate party organization and activity are accompanied by decreased individual influence and success for members of the minority party.

This paper examines possible relationships between state legislative leaders' contacts with national professional organizations, such as the Council of State Governments, and indicators of differences in cosmopolitanism, in‐state information resources, and political environments. The findings suggest that leaders in states with unified party control of the executive and legislative institutions are more involved with national organizations than leaders from states with divided party control. However, there are no significant differences in involvement among leaders in terms of other party measures: whether they are Democrats or Republicans, majority or minority leaders, institutional or party leaders, or the degree of inter‐party competition in their legislative chambers. Additionally, leaders from small states with fewer in‐state information resources and those from more cosmopolitan urban or moralistic political culture states are more intensively involved with national organizations.

This paper examines the effects of party control (Republican or Democrat) on state welfare policies after congressional passage of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 1996. Interviews and surveys of legislative actors suggest that the adoption process in many states was highly partisan, but there was no relationship between party measures and welfare policy content for all states. Policy makers reported that welfare policy choices were influenced by the re-election context in a state. States that adopted more generous TANF policies had: competitive party systems, liberal ideologies, or previously high rankings on AFDC expenditures. Party positions redefined the welfare policy problem and set the parameters for welfare reform choices, but those choices were modified by contextual variables in some states. A few Republican governors accomplished comprehensive welfare policy reform.

This paper examines the possible relationships between state legislative leaders' contacts with national professional organizations, such as the Council of State Governments, & indicators of differences in cosmopolitanism, in-state information resources, & political environments. The findings suggest that leaders in states with unified party control of the executive & legislative institutions are more involved with national organizations than leaders from states with divided party control. However, there are no significant differences in involvement among leaders in terms of other party measures: whether they are Democrats or Republicans, majority or minority leaders, or institutional or party leaders; or the degree of inter-party competition in their legislative chambers. Additionally, leaders from small states with fewer in-state information resources & those from more cosmopolitan urban or moralistic political culture states are more intensively involved with national organizations. 3 Tables, 19 References. Adapted from the source document.