Scholars in the field of American politics, for several decades, have studied and debated the causes and influences of polarization. Ideology is made up of a set of values that inform personal political attitudes. These value preferences can be aligned along a single-dimension liberal to conservative scale (Burden, Caldeira, and Groseclose 2000; Pool and Rosenthal, 2007). Along this ideological scale there has been an increasing sorting of parties to the extreme ends of the scale. Democrats have become more liberal and Republicans (GOP) have become more conservative. This causes a divergence for viewpoints and the notion that the policy positions, interests, and concerns of the oppose ideology is seen as legitimate (Bishop, 2009). This
…show more content…
House and U.S. Senate. However, the rate of polarization has not been uniform between the two chambers, nor has increasing polarization been uniform among the electorate. The U.S. House of Representatives has polarized faster than the Senate (Bafumi and Herron, 2010; Poole and Rosenthal, 2007). Theriault (2006) finds that more ideologically extreme members often replace retiring members and members who lose reelection, this hold for replacements of the same-party and cross-party replacements. Members, throughout their career, adapt to the changing political environment by incrementally moving to extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (Theriault, 2008; Jessee and Theriault, 2012). This unevenness in polarization between the two chambers is due in part to the structure of elections where the House comes up for reelection every two years, and one-third of the Senate is up for reelection …show more content…
Starting in the 1960s, with the Civil Rights movement, attitudes on race, culture, and welfare began to divide the political elites within and between the parties promoting more ideological positions in Congress (Carmines and Stimson, 1989; Layman, 2001). These fissures in party politics were evident in the South, yet permeated throughout national and state politics instigating a realignment of political parties and a sorting of parties based on ideology. This ideological and party sorting produced differentiation of policy positions leading to a greater ideological divide in voting position in Congress (Abramowitz and Saunders 2002; Fleisher and Bond 2004). However, a downside to ideological stances on racial, ethnic, and welfare politics is that moderate voters become disengaged from the process, which only increases the intensity and impact of ideological voters on representation in Congress (Downs, 1957; Theriault, 2006; 2008; Jessee and Theriault,
House and U.S. Senate. However, the rate of polarization has not been uniform between the two chambers, nor has increasing polarization been uniform among the electorate. The U.S. House of Representatives has polarized faster than the Senate (Bafumi and Herron, 2010; Poole and Rosenthal, 2007). Theriault (2006) finds that more ideologically extreme members often replace retiring members and members who lose reelection, this hold for replacements of the same-party and cross-party replacements. Members, throughout their career, adapt to the changing political environment by incrementally moving to extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (Theriault, 2008; Jessee and Theriault, 2012). This unevenness in polarization between the two chambers is due in part to the structure of elections where the House comes up for reelection every two years, and one-third of the Senate is up for reelection …show more content…
Starting in the 1960s, with the Civil Rights movement, attitudes on race, culture, and welfare began to divide the political elites within and between the parties promoting more ideological positions in Congress (Carmines and Stimson, 1989; Layman, 2001). These fissures in party politics were evident in the South, yet permeated throughout national and state politics instigating a realignment of political parties and a sorting of parties based on ideology. This ideological and party sorting produced differentiation of policy positions leading to a greater ideological divide in voting position in Congress (Abramowitz and Saunders 2002; Fleisher and Bond 2004). However, a downside to ideological stances on racial, ethnic, and welfare politics is that moderate voters become disengaged from the process, which only increases the intensity and impact of ideological voters on representation in Congress (Downs, 1957; Theriault, 2006; 2008; Jessee and Theriault,