Are strong political parties good?

Good social science requires nuance.

Over time, the American political system has become steadily more democratic — controlled by the people at large, rather than by party bosses negotiating with each other in smoke-filled rooms. This trend can be seen in the evolution of the presidential primary system; it can also be seen in the way that Americans have rejected indirect elections for governors and senators.

Some political scientists will say that stronger political parties are better. They say that America’s problems with excessive partisanship are due, counterintuitively, to weak political parties. (C.f. this article.) This is in sharp contrast to non-academics interested in political reform, who frequently blame the parties themselves for excessive partisanship.

From George Washington’s farewell address in 1797 to the present, it’s been widely accepted by many Americans that political partisanship is a problem.

The first thing we need to do is define a strong party, and this is where things get tricky. One recent paper defines a strong party as having a coherent agenda,1 permanent organizations, and centralized candidate selection. There aren’t obvious direct downsides to parties being permanent organizations with coherent agendas.

If a stronger party has more centralized control over who will go into office to represent its interests, then the entire course of American political reform from the death of King Caucus to the 17th…