Party Affiliation: The Politics of Race, Class, and Gender
What makes people affiliate with—that is, join, support, or vote for—Republicans,
Democrats, or a third party? Surprisingly, it’s not often the issues, and rarely the “great
divide” of government intervention versus hands off. The answer is that people are social-
ized into party affiliation. They vote to express their group identity. If you were to tell
me your educational background, class, race, and gender, I would probably be able to
predict who you are going to vote for with an amazing amount of accuracy (Burdick
and Broadbeck, 1977; Popkin, 1994). Party affiliation tends to follow from:1.Class.Poor, working-class, lower-middle-class, and blue-collar trade unionists tend
to be Democrats, while wealthy, upper-middle-class, white-collar individuals tend
to be Republicans. In 2004, the Republican Bush beat the Democrat Kerry among
households earning over $50,000 per year, but Kerry beat Bush among low-income
and blue-collar households. (See Figure 14.2 for all data cited here.)2.Education.Generally, the higher educational levels go Democratic, and the lower
Republican. However, in 2004, Kerry beat Bush among boththe least-educated
and the most-educated voters.3.Race.Since the 1930s, most racial and ethnic minorities have been Democratic.
However, the percentages are declining as more minorities become wealthy, upper
middle class, and white collar. In 2000, 90 percent of Blacks and 67 percent of
Latinos voted Democratic. In 2004, it was 88 percent of Blacks and 67 percent
of Latinos.4.Gender.Women are more likely than men to vote Democratic, but again the per-
centages are declining (54 percent in 2000, 51 percent in 2004). The decrease470 CHAPTER 14POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
Third Parties
Since the 1920s, third parties in the United States
have sometimes run successful campaigns on the
local level, but American politics on the national level
have been dominated by the Democrats and the
Republicans.
Although no third party candidate has won a pres-
idential election since 1860, some have received a surprising
amount of popular support: Progressive Robert M. LaFollette won
17 percent of the popular votes in 1924, American Independent
George Wallace 13 percent—and 46 electoral votes—in 1968,
and Independent (with no party affiliation) Ross Perot 19 per-
cent in 1992. In 1948, the first election after World War II and
the death of Franklin Roosevelt, two candidates ran on smaller
party slates: South Carolina senator and ardent segregationist
Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat” for the State’s Rights Party
and Henry Wallace ran on the Progressive Party ticket. Thurmond
received 2.41 percent of the vote and Wallace 2.37 percent—
not much of a difference. But Thurmond actually carried fourstates (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) and
received 39 electoral votes.
Many voters are hesitant about voting for a third party
candidate, believing that not only are they “throwing their votes
away,” but they are also “election spoilers,” compromising the
chances of an otherwise worthy candidate. In 2000, for instance,
liberal Republican candidate George W. Bush won the critical
state of Florida by less than 600 votes, and Democrats blamed
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader for taking away liberals who
would otherwise have voted for Al Gore (Sifry, 2003).
During the 2004 presidential elections, three other parties
received ballot access; that is, they met the regulations for
putting their candidates on the ballot in enough states to have
a chance at winning. The Constitution Party’s Michael Peroutka
won 144,000 popular votes; the Green Party’s David Cobb
120,000; and the Libertarians’ Michael Badnarik 397,000. But
the most votes a third party candidate has received in recent
presidential elections is 2.8 million, going to Green candidate
Ralph Nader in 2000.Sociologyand ourWorld