Return to: Search Page or to: Table of Contents Vol. 8, issue 3

Seth Goldstein, "Party Leaders, Power and Change," Party Politics, 8 (May 2002), 327-348.

First Paragraph:
The demise of the stereotypical party machine has continued relatively unabated over the course of the twentieth century; however, leaders of party organizations still exercise some degree of control over access to elective office and the resources needed to contest elections credibly. Aspiring officeholders are certainly no longer as beholden to party leaders as they once were; however, candidates, especially those competing at the state and local level, are still well advised to develop a good working relationship with party regulars.

Figures and Tables:
Table 1. Variables included in the timing model
Table 2. Results for Harrell (1985) and Grambsch and Therneau (1994) tests for non-proportionality
Table 3. Factors influencing the timing of state compliance (Shafer dichotomy included)
Table 4. Factors influencing the timing of state compliance (TPO included)
Figure 1. Estimated survival curves for state parties (by Shafer dichotomy)
Figure 2. Estimated survival curves for state parties (by TPO classification)

Last Paragraph:
Regardless of the particulars of the situation where the framework is employed, the same type of pattern should emerge that emerged during the Democratic reforms of the 1970s. Party leaders who exercise more control over their party organizations will be more likely to resist attempts to decrease that control than party leaders who do not exercise that level of control. However, even intransigent party leaders must determine what affect such resistance is likely to have upon their party's electoral coalition.