Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T19:58:01.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Real (Lack of) Difference between Republicans and Democrats: A Computer Word Score Analysis of Party Platforms, 1996–2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2008

Quentin Kidd
Quentin Kidd
Affiliation:
Christopher Newport University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For years voters and political pundits have grumbled about the lack of real choice between Republicans and Democrats. Scholars have examined party behavior and suggested reasons for concern. Determining whether there is a real ideological and policy difference between U.S. political parties, and the nature of that difference, is important for political science and for democratic politics generally. Ultimately, democracy is about choices, and where choices are few, democracy is degraded. One way to examine the choices that political parties offer voters is by assessing their political platforms. Even in an era of candidate-centric politics, political party platforms spell out the general programs offered by the parties, and the platforms are heavily influenced by the policy positions of the candidates themselves. In addition, the political platform is the one document that spells out the entire program of the party. Individual candidate speeches capture only snippets (at best) of the policy choices offered to voters. Recent innovations in computerized content analysis make it possible to analyze large bodies of text such as party platforms in a systematic way by treating words as data, then analyzing them statistically.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 519 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” American Political Science Review 44 (Supplement): 1–100.Google Scholar
Bara, Judith. 2001. “Tracking Estimates of Public Opinion and Party Policy Intentions in Britain and USA.” In Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors, ed. Laver, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. “Compared to What?” Political Analysis 16: 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2003. “Estimating Irish Party Policy Positions Using Computer Wordscoring: The 2002 Election.” Irish Political Studies 18: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, Arnold, Christine, Pennings, Paul, and Hosli, Madeleine O.. 2005. “Measuring National Delegate Positions at the Convention on the Future of Europe Using Computerized Word Scoring.” European Union Politics 6: 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 56: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Vokens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, and Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel, Carol A., and Hill, David B.. 1981. “Explanations of Turnout Decline: A Multivariate Test.” American Politics Quarterly 9: 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garry, John. 2001. “The Computer Coding of Political Texts: Results from Britain, Germany, Ireland and Norway.” In Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors, ed. Laver, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
“GOP, Democrats: What's the Difference?” 1996. San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, A22.Google Scholar
Kimball, David C., and Gross, Cassie A.. 2007. “The Growing Polarization of American Voters.” In The State of the Parties, eds. Green, John C. and Coffey, Daniel J.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Hofferbert, Richard, and Budge, Ian. 1994. Parties, Policies and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. “Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data.” American Political Science Review 97: 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nader, Ralph. 2000. “Why I'm In the Race,” Washington Post, November 1, A33.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993 [2003]. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Stephen D. 1981. “A Multivariate Explanation of Decreasing Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1960–1976.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 68–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“The Unsystematic Two-Party System.” 1992. Greensboro News & Record, September 3, A13.Google Scholar