A political party can be defined as “an organisation that sponsors candidates for political office under the organisations name”.

One of the principal functions of political parties in a representative democracy is “to bridge the gap between the people and their government”. In this linking role, parties should act as a two-way channel of communication between the leaders and the electorate. The extent to which parties in America carry out this function can be questioned as under-developed. Although parties do provide a link between public opinion and government, it is probably true to say that other channels of communication have become equally, if not more important. The power of the mass media cannot be underestimated and its use to leaders to transmit a form of opinion and information to the public and vice versa is extensive. Moreover, given their wide memberships and the numerous points of access to the political process in the American system, it could be argued that pressure groups have also come to replace parties as the major link between the people and the government.

Another function of political parties is that of structuring the voting choice. Non-party candidates and new parties are discouraged from contesting elections in which parties with established records and a predictable base of support are competing. The electorate is therefore presented with a realistic choice between a small number of serious candidates and the amount of new information that voters have to take on board to make a rational decision is reduced . It is argued that in this way democracy is enhanced as parties give a straightforward choice between alternative policy directions and provide banners, under which candidates and voters with similar interests and opinions can align.

The extent to which this function is filled by American political parties is questionable. Party identification and alignment has never been as strong in the U.S. as it has in many European countries, yet recent decades have shown a further decline. The rise in spit-ticket, for example in 1988 34% of congressional districts gave a majority to one party’s candidate for president and the other’s house of representatives candidate, is just one indication of the decline and ineffectiveness of party politics in America. The increase in the number of voters describing themselves as independent, the relative success of Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential campaign and the increased personalisation of campaigns, especially in the presidential primaries, all suggest that American parties ability to structure the vote is declining. However, although American parties are unable to structure the vote to the same degree as their European counter parts, the party label cannot be disregarded and is still, especially in more minor elections, an important determinant of voting behaviour.

A major function of political parties is nominating and supplying candidates for election and public office. In theory, parties should act as a form of “quality control” over the nomination of candidates through the process of peer review and also through their ability to seek and recruit talented, competent people. Woll and Binstock argue that, “the parties are, in effect, government personnel agencies, in an organised manner providing the candidates from among whom the electorate can select the people to do the job of governing”. This function of parties would seem to be especially important in the U.S. given the vast number of elective offices. However, the role played by American political parties in supplying and nominating for office would appear to be limited and under developed. Reforms of the presidential nomination procedures in the late 1960s and the early 1970s led to a rise in the number of presidential primaries and a shift in power away from the parties to the electorate and the mass media. Furthermore, unlike in Europe where political advancement takes place largely through working ones way up the party hierarchy, political advancement often takes place with no reference to prior long-term service to the party, the case of General Eisenhower being a prime example. Although parties seem to play a minor role in the recruitment of the most powerful public office holders, they are not altogether unimportant. The appointment of government officials by the president, for example is usually made through party linkages.

A vital function of political parties that is especially important in the American system is that of organising and coordinating government. Given the separation of powers and fragmented nature of the American political system, cohesion within parties is essential for effective government. However, as Peele et al noted “fragmentation of government authority creates both a need for and a barrier to unified party government”. Cohesive and disciplined parties are needed to coordinate the separate branches and levels of government and prevent stalemate within the system.

American political parties would appear to perform quite poorly in this respect. Party discipline within Congress is notoriously weak with votes often being cast in line with individuals, consciences or political self-interest instead of in line with the party. The extent to which parties act as coordinating bodies between the executive and the legislature is limited; by no means can a president rely on the support of party colleagues within congress. Instead, voting in congress is more likely to be governed by ad hoc alliances and the distribution of patronage. The weakness and ineffectiveness of parties in organising government could clearly be seen with the Bush(senior) failure in 1990 to get the budget deal passed. Despite support from Bush and leaders from both parties, the package was essentially defeated in the House of Representatives, demonstrating a remarkable collapse of party loyalty (this would not happen in Britain due to collective responsibility). The weakness of parties in this area can be attributed to several factors. Members of Congress often have their own self-interest personal organisations independent of that of the party and, on many issues, are beholden to their constituencies rather than the party.

The weakness and ineffectiveness of party in organising and coordinating government shouldn’t however be over exaggerated. At certain times the governing party has shown enough cohesion to implement substantial policy packages: Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s early programme including Medicare and anti-poverty measures being prime measures being prime examples. Furthermore, parties are not meaningless as the leaderships provide the starting point for any president wishing to gain the support of Congress. Parties also play a vital role in organising the legislative chambers, as members of the majority party must vote together on “questions of congressional organisation, procedure and leadership in order to control committee chairmanships and other prerequisites of power”.

The aggregation of demands and conciliation of different groups within society are important functions of political parties. Traditionally, particular groups have used parties to express and promote their interests in government. For government to be effective, there must also be some conciliation of competing and conflicting interests. American political parties seem to perform well in fulfilling these functions. Through there being “umbrella” organisations, that is “coalitions of interests aggregating demands on behalf of a social groups and regional interests”, parties in the U.S. have been able to appeal to and represent highly diverse interests. For example, until the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the democrats successfully reconciled the segregationist South and the interests of the Northern industrial working class.

Parties should also propose alternative government programmes and thus provide a meaningful choice to the electorate. It has been frequently argued that, because American parties tend to be less ideological and more pragmatic than in Europe, the two parties are very similar, or, in George Wallace’s words, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between them, however, although it is undoubtedly true that American parties tend to occupy a narrower band of the ideological spectrum than those in Europe (the absence of any socialist party clearly showing an under development), it would be untrue to say that voters are offered no choice. Indeed Janda et al argue that there are real philosophical differences between the parties with the republicans occupying conservative positions and the democrats liberal. This was illustrated by the party platforms in the 1992 presidential elections in which both parties took up opposing positions on abortion, gun control, gay rights and medical care. Thus, although the parties tend to be more similar and conservative on economic issues than in many other countries, it would be exaggerated to argue that no real choice is offered to the electorate. Indeed, in a society as diverse and populous as that of America occupying the middle ground to varying degrees is possibly the only way to reconcile and govern the vastly different interests that exist.

The U.S. has only two main political parties, this development can be attributed to three major factors; the election system, the centralising influence of the presidency and the general division of interests into two main camps, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats being known as the more liberal party, with the Republicans the more conservative.

In conclusion, critics of American political parties argue that they are weak, ineffective, too similar, under developed and therefore unable to perform the functions of parties essential in modern democracies for efficient, representative and accountable government. Compared directly to European parties, it is probably accurate to say that American parties offer less choice, are less disciplined and cohesive and, in general, are weaker, less influential organisations. However, operating within the context of the pluralistic and fragmented political system and culture, parties in the U.S. would appear to be more effective than might be expected and thus, “criticisms of American political parties are really critisms of the American political scene as a whole”. The two parties are essential to the well being of democracy in America and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant or meaningless. Despite accusations of decline, the parties continue to play a vital role within the political system and fulfil functions that could not be performed as successfully by other organisations.