Editing Political realignment (section)

{{Short description|Dramatic change in a political system}}

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. In the fields of [[political science]] and [[political history]], this is often referred to as a '''critical election''', '''critical realignment''', or '''realigning election'''. 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 [[Elections in the United States|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) [[Political eras of the United States|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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Key |first=V. O. |date=1955 |title=A Theory of Critical Elections |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2126401 |journal=The Journal of Politics |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=3–18 |doi=10.2307/2126401 |jstor=2126401 |issn=0022-3816|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Key |first=V. O. |date=1959 |title=Secular Realignment and the Party System |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127162 |journal=The Journal of Politics |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=198–210 |doi=10.2307/2127162 |jstor=2127162 |issn=0022-3816|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burnham |first=Walter Dean |title=Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics |date=October 17, 1971 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |isbn=978-0393093971 |location=New York}}</ref> Many of the elections often included in the Burnham 38-year cycle are considered "realigning" for different reasons.

Other political scientists and [[Psephology|quantitative elections analysts]] reject [[Cyclical theory (United States history)|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&nbsp;... It is too slippery, too binary, too apocalyptic, and it has come to be too much of a dead end."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mayhew |first=David R. |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq2tn |title=Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre |date=2002 |publisher=Yale University Press |jstor=j.ctt1nq2tn |isbn=978-0-300-09336-0}}</ref> [[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 [[Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena|image of Jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich]] – [[Confirmation bias|if you stare long enough and hard enough, you will eventually find what you are looking for]]."<ref>{{cite book|last=Trende|first=Sean|author-link=Sean Trende|title=The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs–and Who Will Take It|year=2012|publisher=[[St. Martin's Press]]|isbn=978-0230116467|page=xx|url=https://archive.org/details/lostmajoritywhyf0000tren}}</ref> In August 2013, Trende observed that [[United States presidential election summary|U.S. presidential election results]] from [[1880 United States presidential election|1880]] through [[2012 United States presidential election|2012]] form a 0.96 [[Correlation and dependence|correlation]] with the [[Expected value|expected]] [[Set (mathematics)|sets]] of [[Outcome (probability)|outcomes]] (i.e. [[Event (probability theory)|events]]) in the [[binomial distribution]] of a [[fair coin]] [[Coin flipping|flip]] [[Experiment (probability theory)|experiment]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Trende|first=Sean|date=August 13, 2013|title=Are Elections Decided by Chance?|website=[[RealClearPolitics]]|publisher=RealClearInvestors and Crest Media|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/13/are_elections_decided_by_random_chance.html|access-date=April 7, 2021}}</ref> In May 2015, statistician and ''[[FiveThirtyEight]]'' editor-in-chief [[Nate Silver]] argued against a [[Blue wall (U.S. politics)|blue wall]] [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] advantage for the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] in the [[2016 United States presidential election|2016 U.S. presidential election]],<ref>{{cite news|last=Silver|first=Nate|author-link=Nate Silver|title=There Is No 'Blue Wall'|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/|date=May 12, 2015|access-date=January 6, 2020}}</ref> 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.{{refn|group=list|name=Post-election analysis|<ref>{{cite news|last=Trende|first=Sean|title=It Wasn't the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits|date=November 12, 2016|website=RealClearPolitics|publisher=RealClearInvestors and Crest Media|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/12/it_wasnt_the_polls_that_missed_it_was_the_pundits_132333.html|access-date=October 28, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Trende|first=Sean|title=The God That Failed|date=November 16, 2016|website=RealClearPolitics|publisher=RealClearInvestors and Crest Media|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/16/the_god_that_failed_132363.html|access-date=May 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Silver|first=Nate|title=The Electoral College Blind Spot|website=FiveThirtyEight|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-electoral-college-blind-spot/|date=January 23, 2017|access-date=January 6, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Silver|first=Nate|title=It Wasn't Clinton's Election To Lose|website=FiveThirtyEight|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-wasnt-clintons-election-to-lose/|date=January 23, 2017|access-date=January 6, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Silver|first=Nate|date=March 10, 2017|title=There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble|website=FiveThirtyEight|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/|access-date=October 28, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Silver|first=Nate|date=September 21, 2017|title=The Media Has A Probability Problem|website=FiveThirtyEight|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-media-has-a-probability-problem/|access-date=October 28, 2021}}</ref>}}{{TOC_limit|3}}