Political realignment

A political realignment is a set of sharp changes in party related ideology, issues, leaders, regional bases, demographic bases, and/or the structure of powers within a government. Often also referred to as a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election, in the academic fields of political science and political history. These changes result in a restructuring of political focus and power that lasts for decades, usually replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections as this is where it is most common, though the experience also does occur in governments across the globe. It is generally accepted that the United States has had five distinct party systems, each featuring two major parties attracting a consistent political coalition and following a consistent party ideology, separated by four realignments. Two of the most apparent examples include the 1896 United States presidential election, when the issues of the American Civil War political system were replaced with those of the Populist and Progressive Era. As well as the 1932 United States presidential election, when the issues of the Populist and Progressive Eras were replaced by New Deal liberalism and modern conservatism. Realigning elections also contribute significantly to realigning (what are known in the field of comparative politics as) party systems—with 1828, for example, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US.

Political realignments can be sudden (1–4 years) or can take place more gradually (5–20 years). Most often, as demonstrated in V. O. Key Jr.'s (1955) original hypothesis, a single "critical election" marks a sudden realignment.^[1] However he also argued that a cyclical process of realignment exists, wherein political views within interests groups gradually begin to separate which he designated as secular realignment.^[2] Political scientists and historians often disagree about which elections are realignments and what defines a realignment, and even whether realignments occur. The terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary, however, and usage among political scientists and historians does vary. In the US, Walter Dean Burnham argued for a 30–38 year "cycle" of realignments.^[3] Many of the elections often included in the Burnham 38-year cycle are considered "realigning" for different reasons.

Other political scientists and quantitative elections analysts reject realignment theory altogether, arguing that there are no long-term patterns. Political scientist David R. Mayhew states, "Elections and their underlying causes are not usefully sortable into generation-long spans ... It is too slippery, too binary, too apocalyptic, and it has come to be too much of a dead end."^[4] Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, also argues against the realignment theory and the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis proposed by journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira. In his 2012 book The Lost Majority, Trende states, "Almost none of the theories propounded by realignment theorists has endured the test of time... It turns out that finding a 'realigning' election is a lot like finding an image of Jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich – if you stare long enough and hard enough, you will eventually find what you are looking for."^[5] In August 2013, Trende observed that U.S. presidential election results from 1880 through 2012 form a 0.96 correlation with the expected sets of outcomes (i.e. events) in the binomial distribution of a fair coin flip experiment.^[6] In May 2015, statistician and FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver argued against a blue wall Electoral College advantage for the Democratic Party in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,^[7] and in post-election analysis, Silver cited Trende in noting that "there are few if any permanent majorities" and both Silver and Trende argued that the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis led most news coverage and commentary preceding the election to overstate Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected.^{[list 1]}

Cite error: There are <ref group=list> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=list}} template (see the help page).