A political realignment is a set of sharp changes in party-related ideology, issues, leaders, regional bases, demographic bases, and/or the structure of power within a government. In political science and political history, this is often called a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election. These changes restructure political focus and power for decades, usually replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections, where it is most common, though it also occurs in governments across the globe. It is generally accepted that the United States has had five distinct party systems, each featuring two major parties that attract a consistent political coalition and follow 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, and 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 comparative politics calls) party systems—for example, in 1828, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US.
Political realignments can be sudden (1–4 years) or gradual (5–20 years). Most often, as demonstrated in V. O. Key Jr.'s (1955) original hypothesis, a single "critical election" marks a sudden realignment. However, he also argued that a cyclical process of realignment exists, in which political views within interest groups gradually separate, which he called secular realignment. 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, and usage among political scientists and historians varies. In the US, Walter Dean Burnham argued for a 30–38 year "cycle" of realignments. Many of the elections often included in the Burnham 38-year cycle are considered "realigning" for different reasons.
Other political scientists and quantitative elections analysts reject realignment theory altogether, arguing that no long-term patterns exist. Political scientist David R. Mayhew states, "Elections and their underlying causes are not usefully sortable into generation-long spans ... It is too slippery, too binary, too apocalyptic, and it has come to be too much of a dead end." 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 image of Jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich – if you stare long enough and hard enough, you will eventually find what you are looking for." In August 2013, Trende observed that U.S. presidential election results from 1880 through 2012 show a 0.96 correlation with the expected outcomes (i.e. events) in the binomial distribution of a fair coin flip experiment. In May 2015, statistician and FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver argued against a blue-wall Electoral College advantage for the Democratic Party in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In post-election analysis, Silver cited Trende, noting that "there are few, if any, permanent majorities," and both Silver and Trende argued that the "emerging Democratic majority" thesis led most pre-election news coverage and commentary to overstate Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected.
Realignment theory The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V. O. Key Jr.'s 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections", is that American elections, parties and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps as well as slow, gradual movements.
V. O. Key Jr., E. E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, Walter Dean Burnham are generally credited with developing and refining the theory of realignment.Shafer (1991); Rosenof (2003) Though they differed on some of the details, earlier realignments scholars generally concluded that systematic patterns are identifiable in American national elections. Such that cycles occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so. This period of roughly 30 years fits with the notion that these cycles are closely linked to generational change. However later scholars, such as Shafer and Reichley, argue that the patterns are longer, closer to 50 to 60 years in duration. Pointing to the Democratic dominance from 1800 to 1860, and Republican rule from 1860 to 1932 as examples, Reichley argues that the only true realigning elections occurred in these 60 year periods. Given the much longer length of time since the last generally accepted realignment in 1932, more recent scholars have theorized that realignments don't in fact operate on any consistent time scale, but rather occur whenever the necessary political, social, and economic changes occur.
Voter realignments A central component of realignment is the change in behavior of voting groups. Realignment within the context of voting relates to the switching of voter preferences from one party to another. This is in contrast to dealignment where a voter group abandons a party due to voter apathy or to become independent. In the US and Australia, as the ideologies of the parties define many of the aspects of voters' lives and the decisions that they make, a realignment by a voter tends to have a longer-lasting effect.
In Britain, Canada, and other countries the phenomenon of political realignment is not as drastic. Due to the multi-party system, voters have a tendency to switch parties on a whim, perhaps only for one election, as there is far less loyalty towards one particular party.
Cultural issues The major political parties in the United States have held the same name for over a century, yet there is no doubt that their values and intentions have changed. While realignment is caused by various reasons, one of the largest factors is cultural issues. The culture of a population is altered over time as technology advances, needs change, and values evolve. With this shift, a population's views and desires will also change, thus resulting in parties realigning to be relevant to present topics.
In recent years, LGBTQ rights has become a growing factor in politics around the world. The increasing publicized presence of the LGBTQ community has created rifts and realignments in political parties. For example, in 2022, there were 315 bills introduced to various state legislatures across the United States that were found to be anti-LGBTQ. Of these 315 bills, 29 were signed into the state's law.
While further discussing evolving social issues and its relation to party realignment, the growing issue of abortion has been found in relevancy to newly found party values. These values which differentiate between certain parties can be attributed to federal abortion policies, which have been altered, fought for, and lost, thus creating a mass social issue. Since Roe v. Wade, abortion has largely become a major aspect of US politics. Furthermore, the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case has sparked further issues in the US political scene, as it overturned the constitutional right of abortion that was granted from Roe v. Wade, in 1973. The issue of abortion, state restrictions, and overturning of federal funding for procedures has created a political uproar in the US. For example, many state legislatures, members of Congress, and other politically powered members have created restrictions on insurance, funding, and the overall accessibility of having an abortion. These actions have created the movement of activists to fight for the right of abortion. Furthermore, this battle has caused political parties to acknowledge the cause, determine their stance, and realign overall.
United States
Political realignment in United States history 1800 presidential election — Thomas Jefferson This election completed the turnover of power in the First Party System from the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, to Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. The center of power shifted from New England to the South and Jeffersonian democracy became the dominant ideology. Republicans gained 19.7% of House seats in 1800, 9.4% in 1802 and 9.7% in 1804, for a total gain of 38.8% in 3 elections. As late as 1812, the Federalists came within one state of winning. A larger shift in electoral politics arguably came in the 1812–1816 period, as the Federalists became discredited after opposing the War of 1812. 1828 presidential election — Andrew Jackson This election redefined the party system in the United States, setting up the Second Party System, which was dominated by Jacksonian democracy. The Democratic-Republicans split into two parties, later renamed as the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The Democrats were led by Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and Martin Van Buren of New York. By 1834 the Whigs emerged as the opposition to Andrew Jackson, led by Henry Clay of Kentucky.Silbey (1991) 1860 presidential election — Abraham Lincoln After the Whigs collapsed after 1852, party alignments were in turmoil, with several third parties, such as the Know Nothings and the Opposition Party. The system stabilized in 1858 and the presidential election marked the ascendence of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln beat out three other contenders — but even if they had somehow united he still had the majority of the electoral vote. The Republican party was pledged to the long-term ending of slavery, which was proximate cause of secession. Republicans rallied around nationalism in 1861 and fought the American Civil War to end secession. During the war the Republicans, under Lincoln's leadership, switched to a goal of short-term ending of slavery. By 1864, the Republicans had a coalition built around followers of the "free labor" ideology, as well as soldiers and veterans of the Union Army. (Since then, the military establishment has favored the Republicans.) The Republican Party went from 18.3% of the House in 1854, to 38.0% in 1856, 48.7% in 1858, and 59.0% in 1860, for a total gain of 40.7% in 4 elections.Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978) 1896 presidential election — William McKinley