Amerykańskie wybory prezydenckie 2016 r. z perspektywy zmian systemu partyjnego i środowiska instytucjonalnego

• Autorzy: Dariusz Stolicki

Warianty tytułu

American 2016 Presidential Election in Light of Changes in Party System and Institutional Environment

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Cel naukowy: Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wybranych aspektów zmian amerykańskiego systemu partyjnego i instytucjonalnego, jakie wpłynęły na wynik wyborów 2016 r., oraz przeanalizowanie, jakich konsekwencji tego wyniku należy oczekiwać dla dalszej ewolucji wspomnianych systemów.

Problem i metody badawcze: Artykuł koncentruje się na przyczynach utraty kontroli establishmentu partyjnego nad procesem prawyborów, długoterminowych uwarunkowaniach zwycięstwa Donalda Trumpa w wyborach powszechnych oraz perspektywach reorientacji programowej Partii Republikańskiej w kierunku tzw. tradycji jacksonowskiej.

Proces wywodu: Przebieg i wyniki prawyborów w obydwu partiach analizowane są w świetle ustaleń literatury dotyczących mechanizmu funkcjonowania amerykańskich instytucji politycznych (w szczególności legislatur i partii politycznych). Z kolei przyczyny przesunięć poparcia wyborczego między partiami rozpatrywane są w ujęciu jakościowym na podstawie przykładów i trendów historycznych. Wreszcie potencjalne konsekwencje zwycięstwa D. Trumpa analizowane są w odniesieniu do reguł instytucjonalnych (przede wszystkich prawnych) determinujących możliwości realizacji programu prezydenckiego.

Wyniki analizy naukowej: Uprawdopodobniono tezę o istnieniu związku przyczynowego między reformami instytucjonalnymi bezpośrednio lub pośrednio osłabiającymi tradycyjne mechanizmy hierarchiczne w polityce amerykańskiej a utratą kontroli nad procesem nominacyjnym przez establishmenty partyjne, która umożliwiła zwycięstwo D. Trumpa i osłabiła H. Clinton. Wskazano na stabilne historyczne wzorce zachowań wyborczych, częściowo wyjaśniające zwycięstwo kandydata republikanów w wyborach powszechnych.

Wnioski, innowacje, rekomendacje: Wynik wyborów prezydenckich w USA w 2016 r. był rezultatem splotu wielu czynników. Nie bez znaczenia były również niedostrzegane w bieżących komentarzach uwarunkowania instytucjonalne (jak osłabienie kierownictwa partyjnego) oraz stabilne wzorce zachowań amerykańskiego elektoratu (przewaga "outsiderów" - kandydatów spoza polityki federalnej czy inklinacja ku alternacji władzy). (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The article is to present select aspects of changes in American party system and institutional environment that influenced 2016 election results and to analyze probable consequences of those results for further evolution of the said systems.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The article focuses on causes of the party establishment's loss of control over the nominating process, long-term determinants of Donald Trump's general election victory and perspectives for reorientation of Republican Party line towards the "Jacksonian tradition."

THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: Primary campaigns and their outcomes are analyzed in the light of scholarship findings on internal operating mechanisms of American political institutions (primarily legislatures and political parties). Causes of interparty shifts in electoral support are considered qualitatively on the basis of historical trends and examples. Potential consequences of Donald Trump's victory are analyzed against institutional rules (primarily legal norms) determining feasibility of his electoral platform.

RESEARCH RESULTS: A claim of causal relationship between institutional reforms directly or indirectly weakening traditional hierarchical relationships in American politics and loss of establishment control over primaries, which facilitated Donald Trump's nomination and led to weakening of Hillary Clinton's campaign, has been preliminarily substantiated. Stable patterns of electoral behaviors that partially explain Republican candidate's victory in general elections have been indicated.

CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 2016 American presidential election results are a product of multiple factors and but-for causes. Not insubstantial among them, although receiving little recognition in the campaign commentary, were institutional conditions (such as weakening of party leadership) and stable patterns of electoral behavior (favorable view of political outsiders and inclination towards alternation in power). (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

System polityczny; System partyjny; Wybory prezydenckie

EN

Political system; Party system; Presidential election

• Czasopismo: Horyzonty Polityki
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 7
• Numer: nr 20 Konflikt na Ukrainie - reaktywacja geopolityki?
• Strony: 217--238

Twórcy

autor

Dariusz Stolicki

• Uniwersytet Jagielloński

Bibliografia

• Abramowitz, A.I., Cover, A.D. i Norpoth, H. (1986). The President's Party in Midterm Elections: Going from Bad to Worse. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 562-576. doi: 10.2307/2111090.
• Alford, J.R. (2001). We're All in This Together. The Decline of Trust in Government, 1958-1996. W: J.R. Hibbing i E. Theiss-Morse (red.), What Is it about Government that Americans Dislike?. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 28-46.
• Bartels, L.M. (1985). Expectations and Preferences in Presidential Nominating Campaigns. American Political Science Review, 79, 804-815. doi: 10.2307/1956845.
• Binder, S.A. i Lee, F.E. (2013). Making Deals in Congress. W: J. Mansbridge i C.J. Martin, Negotiating Agreement in Politics. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 54-72.
• Burnham, W.D. (1970). Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York, NY: Norton.
• Bycoffe, A. (2016, Jun. 7). The Endorsement Primary. FiveThirtyEight. Pozyskano z: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/.
• Campbell, J.E. (1993). The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
• Carroll, R., Lewis, J., Lo, J., McCarty, N., Poole, K. i Rosenthal, H. (2015). "Common Space DW-NOMINATE Scores With Bootstrapped Standard Errors (Joint House and Senate Scaling). Rank Orderings for all Houses and Senates. Pozyskano z: http://www.voteview.com//rank_orders_all_congresses.htm.
• Ceaser, J.W. (1979). Presidential Selection: Theory and Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Cohen, M., Karol, D., Noel, H. i Zaller, J. (2008). The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Cook Political Report (2016, Nov. 7). 2016 Electoral Scorecard for November 7, 2016. Pozyskano z : https://web.archive.org/web/20161124115121/ http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard.
• Crook, S.B. i Hibbing, J.R. (1985). Congressional Reform and Party Discipline: The Effects of Changes in the Seniority System on Party Loyalty in the US House of Representatives. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 207-226. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400004166.
• David, P.T., Goldman, R.M. i Bain, R.C. (1960). The Politics of National Party Conventions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Deering, C.J. i Smith, S.S. (1997). Committees in Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Diaz, D. (2015, July 9). Think Trump has a chance to snag GOP nomination? Analysis gives him just 1%. CNN Politics. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/donald-trump-data-pivit-2016-election/.
• Doyle, R.B. (2011). The Rise and (Relative) Fall of Earmarks: Congress and Reform, 2006-2010. Public Budgeting & Finance, 31, 1-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5850.2011.00971.x.
• Dunn, S. (2013). 1940: FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler-the Election Amid the Storm. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Evans, C.L. i Oleszek, W.J. (1999). Procedural Features of House Republican Rule. W: N.C. Rae i C.C. Campbell (red.), New Majority Or Old Minority?: The Impact of Republicans on Congress. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 117-134.
• Ferejohn, J.A. i Calvert, R.L. (1984). Presidential coattails in historical perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 127-146. doi: 10.2307/2110790.
• Goldwater v. Carter (1979), 444 U.S. 996.
• Hart, V. (1978). Distrust and Democracy: Political Distrust in Britain and America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Henshel, R.L. i Johnston, W. (1987). The Emergence of Bandwagon Effects: A Theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 28, 493-511.
• Jackson, N. i Hooper, A. (2016, Nov. 8). Election 2016: Forecast. Huffington Post. Pozyskano z: https://web.archive.org/web/20161124151046/ http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president.
• Jacobson, G.C. i Carson, J.L. (2015). The Politics of Congressional Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Jewell, M.E. i Patterson, S.C. (1986). The Legislative Process in the United States. New York, NY: Random House.
• Katz, J. (2016, Nov 8). Who Will Be President? New York Times. Pozyskano z: https://web.archive.org/web/20161127190237/http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html.
• Katz, R.S. i Mair, P. (red.). (1994). How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies. London: SAGE Publishing.
• Kelly, A. i Sprunt, B. (2016, Nov. 9). Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days. NPR. http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days.
• Klumpp, T. i Polborn, M.K. (2006). Primaries and the New Hampshire Effect. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1073-1114. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.009.
• Kubas, S. (2013). Ingerencja amerykańskiego sądu konstytucyjnego w proces wyborczy. Uwagi na tle orzeczenia Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). W: A. Zięba (red.), Konstytucjonalizm w państwach anglosaskich. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 431-440.
• Kurtzleben, D. (2016, Nov. 14). Rural Voters Played A Big Part In Helping Trump Defeat Clinton. NPR. Pozyskano z: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501737150/rural-voters-played-a-big-part-in-helping-trump-defeat-clinton.
• Leuchtenburg, W.E. (1995). The Supreme Court Reborn: the Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Maisel, L.S. i Brewer, M.D. (2011). Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Margolis, Craig D. (1995). House out of Order: Committee Reform in the Modern House of Representatives. Journal of Law and Politics, 11, 273-343.
• McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. (2002), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81.
• McKenna, M.C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War. The Court-Packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
• Mead, W.R. (1999, December). The Jacksonian Tradition. The National Interest, 58. Pozyskano z: https://web.archive.org/web/20000301050532/ http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Meadextract.html.
• Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E. i Guay, J.-H. (1993). New Evidence About the Existence of a Bandwagon Effect in the Opinion Formation Process. International Political Science Review, 14, 203-213. doi: 10.1177/019251219301400204.
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. (2012). 132 S.Ct. 2566.
• Nye, J.S., Jr., Zelikow, P.D. i King, D.C. (1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Oleszek, W. (2010). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Patterson, J.T. (1967). Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal. Lexington, KT: University Press of Kentucky.
• Patterson, J.T. (1997). Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Pew Research Center (2015, Nov. 23). Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government. Pozyskano z: http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/.
• Poole, K.T. i H. Rosenthal (1985). A Spatial Model For Legislative Roll Call Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29 (2). 357-384. doi: 10.2307/2111172.
• Printz v. United States. (1997). 521 U.S. 898.
• Rauch, J. (2016, July/August). How American Politics Went Insane. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/ how-american-politics-went-insane/ 485570/.
• Rosenof, T. (2003). Realignment: The Theory That Changed the Way We Think about American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Rosenzweig, P. (2016, Nov. 29). Annals of the Trump Administration

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17399/HP.2016.0720011