出刊年月/Date of Publishing

1989.12

所屬卷期/Vol. & No.   第19卷第4期 Vol. 19, No. 4

類型/Type                 研究論文 Research Article

篇名/Title
美國選舉政治與府會分黨控制：88年大選結果的分析
American Electoral Politics and Split-Level Party Realignment: An Analysis of the 1988 Elections

作者/Author
王國璋 John K. C. Wang

頁碼/Pagination
pp. 1-32

摘要
1968年起，美國政體進入史無前例的型態：共和黨總是在總統大選中勝出，而民主黨則一直是國會的多數黨。當1988年民主黨連續第五次總統選舉失利卻仍在國會中占多數席次時，此次結果充分反映了美國選舉政治中府會分黨控制的空前現象。兩黨的境遇主要可歸因於新的政黨結盟，其成因一方面是出自於選民對總統及國會個別議員的期許，另一方面則是由於共和及民主黨兩黨黨性相異。

回溯到六○年代末期٫選民割裂投票的情況導致了兩黨府會分治的現象。這種新的選舉政治卻不是古典重組理論可以解釋的٫例如新政所執行之古典重組理論便是從中央到地方縱向的政黨重組，並將聯邦政體中近乎各部會首長之選定讓與民主黨。即使如此，我們還是要追究：為何政府是分裂的？根據民調，美國人所樂見的是一個內在互不相容的聯邦政府。就拿總統大選來說，大部份選民投票時心裡想的是和平與繁榮。相反地，國會是一個由地方選舉出來的部會，當中的每個成員代表的是某個州或某個國會選區，於是大部分的選民面臨國會選舉時多以自身所處的州或選區為衡量的重點，府會分黨控制的結果自是難以避免。

除此之外，兩黨體質的不同也造就了這種新的政治重組現象。共和黨中雖然有以企業家為主的新右派，與講究福音衛道的傳統派，但大致而言，它是一個同質性相當高的政黨。相對地，民主黨的體質多元而不易整合——白人、黑人、與西班牙裔；自由派與保守派；天主教徒、新教徒與猶太人；教育程度低的與專業人士等，都是它的成員。話說回來，民主黨這種複雜的體質反而易於徵召到適時適地的國會議員候選人，也就是說，不管是前進國會或其他州郡政府，民主黨代表的幾乎可說是人民的多元性質。另一方面，共和黨的高度同質性使得其候選人看起來像是同一個模子鑄出來的。

面臨總統大選時，民主黨的異質性卻常常使黨內不易取得共識與整合，共和黨卻在這一方面很容易確定其黨的認同與共識，在代表大會中也容易產生一致的政綱及候選人，一旦提名總統候選人後，全黨立即全心投入、團結一致地幫忙助選。前述民主黨多元組合的長處，卻演變成各選民團體間的互斥現象，且提名的過程充滿曲折，選定後，往往是幾家歡樂幾家愁，給予選民的印象便是一個分歧的政黨，搖擺不定而無法勝任國家大事。

總而言之，選民割裂投票的行為其實和他們對於總統與國會議員的不同期待有相應之處。他們認為，總統管理的是重大的國家大事，國會議員要做的反而是照顧特定的地方利益。如此一來，共和黨在總統大選的優勢根本就無法加持在國會議員身上。除非發生像是經濟大蕭條之類的事，美國府會分黨控制的重組現象仍會繼續下去。

Abstract
Since I 968 the American political system has settled into a historically unprecedented pattern: Republican dominance in presidential elections. Democratic dominance in congressional elections. The Democrats’ defeat in 1988 was their fifth loss in the last six presidential elections, yet they still maintained their majorities in Congress. The results of the 1988 elections reflected an unparalleled split-level realignment of the two parties in American electoral politics. The changing fortunes of the two parties are mainly attributable to a new kind of party alignment. This new realignment is grounded in the voters’ expectations of the presidency and of individual members of Congress and in the nature of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Voters’ ticket-splitting since the late sixties has produced divided control of the presidency and Congress by the two parties. This new pattern of American electoral politics can not be explained by the theory of classic realignment. such as the New Deal top-to-bottom realignment which gave the Democratic party majority at all levels and in all the elected branches of the federal system. So, it remains an interesting question: Why a divided government? A variety of polling data show that Americans want mutually incompatible things from the federal government. Most voters have national criteria in mind when they decide to vote in presidential elections, that is “peace and prosperity.” In contrast, Congress is a locally elected branch wherein each member represents one state or congressional district. Thus most voters base their choices in congressional elections more on the consequences for their own state or district. Therefore, an unprecedented split-level realignment has emerged.

In addition to the above, the nature of the two parties also plays a role in this new realignment. The Republicans, despite some differences between their evangelical “moralist” and economically motivated “enterpriser” wings on social issues, are a fairly homogenous party. The Democrats, in contrast, are raucously diverse—white, black, and Hispanic; liberal and conservative; Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish; uneducated and professionally educated. Thus in fielding candidates for Congress, the Democrats’ diversity is politically beneficial. Hence in elections to Congress or to other state or local offices, the Democratic party is, in one place or another, virtually all things to all people. The candidates of the more homogeneous Republican party seem almost everywhere to have been cast in a similar mold.

But heterogeneity haunts the Democrats in presidential elections. The Republicans do not have to worry about defining their party’s identity when writing their platform or choosing a candidate who will represent them to the whole nation. They have little problem projecting a confident, united front in their presidential campaigns. On the other side, the Democrats, who thrive on being many different parties in local elections, face the challenge of deciding which one party they will be in nominating a candidate for president. Almost invariably, the decision produces unhappy losers as well as a divided party and projects to the voters an image of vacillation and incompetence.

In a word, a split vote is consistent with differences in the duties that contemporary American voters assign to the president and members of Congress. The president is expected to look after broad national interests, while members of Congress are expected to protect particular local interests. Therefore, the advantage Republican presidential candidates enjoy may not extend to Republican congressional candidates at all. Hence, if no major historical events occur, such as the Great Depression, the unprecedented split-level realignment and the divided control of U.S. government will remain for a long time.

關鍵字/Key Word
--

DOI
--

學門分類/Subject
政治學 Political Science