{"id":564,"date":"2020-09-30T10:36:08","date_gmt":"2020-09-30T10:36:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/"},"modified":"2020-09-30T10:36:08","modified_gmt":"2020-09-30T10:36:08","slug":"building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America"},"template":"","class_list":["post-564","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 7 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":false,"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Introduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWe have seen that political parties were a natural outgrowth of democracy.\u00a0 They arose quickly soon after the nation\u2019s founding to solve key challenges.\u00a0 In particular, parties play an important role in managing conflict central to a well-functioning political system.\u00a0 Parties offer a framework for candidates and officeholders to present voters with choices in the marketplace of ideas.\u00a0 They help create majorities and advance agendas in the legislative arena by exerting discipline over party members.\u00a0 As such, parties provide a structure that helps translate individual preferences into societal ones.\u00a0 In addition, political parties engage and mobilize voters in elections through a variety of techniques. By directly addressing the calculus of voting, political parties drive up turnout, tapping the collective mind of the electorate. These activities by parties bring greater efficiency to society by affording people a voice that gets translated into policy and legislation.\r\n\r\nBy 1840, the United States had two strong parties operating in a competitive system.\u00a0 From that time through the end of the century, turnout among eligible voters approached or exceeded 80%.\u00a0 Most citizens strongly identified with one of the two national parties.\u00a0 It was the pinnacle for parties in America in terms of their role in the democratic process.\u00a0 The highwater mark for parties came to an end with the reforms of the Progressive Movement early in the 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 This essay will examine the conditions that gave rise to these reforms, why one key aspect of the reforms was misguided and how other democracies took a different path.\u00a0 That fork in the road had a profound effect on the role of parties that can be seen today.\u00a0 The fork taken by the U.S. weakened political parties while that taken by other countries assured parties would remain at the center of a well-functioning democracy.\r\n\r\nPrelude to the Progressive Movement<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAs part of the human condition, we tend to see today\u2019s problems as paramount.\u00a0 Such implicit bias propels us to tackle problems rather than rest on past accomplishments.\u00a0 Looking back on earlier periods offers a sobering reminder of the capacity of humans to overcome massive challenges.\u00a0 Such is the case when considering the late 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Historians refer to this time as the Gilded Age for a reason.\u00a0 It was a time of \u201cRobber Barons.\u201d\u00a0 Titans of emerging industries, including steel and rail, asserted monopolistic power, distorting markets as well as governmental policy to favor them. \u00a0An enormous disparity in wealth separated American society.\u00a0 Agriculture, the dominant industry and way of life, was undergoing radical change through mechanization.\u00a0 Those taking jobs in new industries faced low wages and poor working conditions.\u00a0 Immigrants arriving in urban areas experienced horrible living conditions and an anti-immigrant backlash. \u00a0The nation experienced booms and busts, including depressions in the 1870s and 1890s that produced widespread poverty.\r\n\r\nThe narrative surrounding the Gilded Age largely overlooks the South, a region slowly recovering from the devastation of the Civil War.\u00a0 While most of the nation grappled with the impacts of rapid industrialization, the South retreated to an economic and political backwater.\u00a0 It is one of the great tragedies in American history. \u00a0Following the Civil War, Congress enacted a series of constitutional amendments that dramatically expanded the scope of American democracy.\u00a0 The 13th<\/sup> Amendment banned slavery.\u00a0 The 14th<\/sup> amendment conferred birthright citizenship on African Americans and created rights of due process in life, liberty and property as well as equal protection under the law.\u00a0 The 15th<\/sup> Amendment prohibited states from denying anyone the right to vote based on race.\u00a0 These amendments ushered the way for major political advances for African Americans in southern states where they comprised a majority or near majority of the population.\u00a0 Aligning with the Republican Party, African Americans exercised the right to vote at very high rates and quickly gained hundreds of seats in state legislatures and dozens of seats in Congress.\r\n\r\nThese gains proved short-lived.\u00a0 In addition to the new rights afforded African Americans, Reconstruction permitted Southern States to rejoin the Union on equal footing.\u00a0 Most white southerners aligned with the Democratic Party and quickly restored it as a national political force.\u00a0 Following Ulysses Grant\u2019s two terms as president, the election of 1876 produced a deadlock.\u00a0 Like 1824, no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes.\u00a0 Democrat Samuel Tilden received the popular vote but was one vote shy of a majority in the electoral college.\u00a0 Republican Rutherford Hayes needed 20 electoral votes to overtake Tilden.\u00a0 After months of deadlock, Congress reached a compromise.\u00a0 In return for granting all disputed electoral votes and the presidency to Hayes, Hayes promised to remove federal troops from the South. This action marked a quick end to the expansion of democracy for African Americans.\u00a0 Between 1876 and 1898, the number of African American registered voters fell more than 90% in the South.\u00a0 Places like Wilmington, North Carolina witnessed the violent overthrow of an African American led government.\u00a0 By 1900, the veil of Jim Crow had descended on the South.\r\n\r\nFighting Bob La Follette and the Wisconsin Idea<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWith African Americans effectively disenfranchised, debates over voting and democracy shifted to other terrain.\u00a0 Outside of the South, the effects of industrialization and concentration of wealth shaped politics.\u00a0 Wisconsin was at the epicenter of these forces.\u00a0 By 1900, 80% of the population owned only 10% of the wealth while 1% of the population owned half the state\u2019s property.\u00a0 40% of the farms were mortgaged. A few corporations, which paid almost no taxes, controlled the political and economic power in the state.\r\n\r\nBob La Follette rose to power in this environment.\u00a0 He grew up on a farm at a time when rural areas were relatively prosperous.\u00a0 He attended the University of Wisconsin and entered politics soon after being admitted to the bar.\u00a0 Elected to the U.S. House in 1884 as its youngest member, La Follette supported most of the Republican Party\u2019s agenda, including high tariffs, compulsory education and anti-discrimination measures in the South.\u00a0 He lost reelection in 1890 in a national landslide election for the Democrats. \u00a0It was during this time that La Follette became disillusioned with the Party establishment.\u00a0 He went public after a Republican leader tried to bride him to influence the outcome of a case before his brother-in-law.\u00a0 That case involved malfeasance by the Republican Party.\u00a0 Over the next two election cycles for governor, party leaders chose an incumbent over La Follette even though he enjoyed widespread grassroots support.\r\n\r\nAn intense campaigner and great orator, La Follette found a receptive audience by speaking against corporate interests and \u201cthe party machine.\u201d\u00a0 He adopted much of the reform agenda advocated by the Populist Party. \u00a0In 1890, the Populists won a number of local and state elections in the Midwest.\u00a0 In addition to its anti-corporate policies such as government ownership of the railroads and free coinage of silver to stimulate the economy, the Populists advocated several reforms to make politics more responsive to the electorate.\u00a0 These measures included the direct election of senators, a single-term presidency, ballot reforms and citizen initiatives.\u00a0 Like many other third parties, the influence of the Populists came and went, but its ideas carried on.\r\n\r\nLa Follette adopted much of the Populist\u2019s reform agenda.\u00a0 That agenda conformed to his view of party politics.\u00a0 Importantly, La Follette seized on one other reform proposed by an academic at the University of Wisconsin:\u00a0 direct primaries.\u00a0 This concept proposed giving voters the power to select a party\u2019s candidates for the general election in a primary instead of party leaders selecting them in a caucus or convention.\u00a0 La Follette hit the speaker circuit and gained widespread attention for his speech, \u201cThe Menace of the Machine.\u201d\u00a0 Echoing the words of Lincoln, La Follette concluded, \u201cIf this generation will destroy the political machine, will emancipate the majority from its enslavement, will again place the destinies of this nation in the hands of its citizens, then \u2018Under God,\u2019 this government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.\u201d\r\n\r\nLa Follette tied his critique of the political machine to the powerful influence of business.\u00a0 In another speech entitled \u201cThe Danger Threatening Representative Government,\u201d La Follette warned \u201cThe existence of the corporation, as we have it with us today, was never dreamed of by the fathers ... The Corporation of today has invaded every department of business, and its powerful but invisible hand is felt in almost all activities of life \u2026 The effect of this change upon the American people is radical and rapid.\u201d\u00a0 He continued, \u201cDo not look to such lawmakers to restrain corporations within proper limits \u2026 No, begin at the foundation, make one supreme effort \u2026 to secure a better set of lawmakers.\u201d\u00a0 To do so, he urged voters \u201celect men who will pass a primary election law which will enable the voter to sell the candidate of his choice without ... the domination of the machine.\u201d\r\n\r\nBy pulling direct primaries into a broader crusade to expand American democracy, La Follette planted the seed that would ultimately weaken the role parties play in democracy.\u00a0 Even La Follette\u2019s critics at the time understood the flaw in his logic:\r\n

\"You have been speaking in many parts of the State as against the Machine in Politics.\u00a0 Why, my dear sir, even your own modesty will not permit you to deny the fact that you and your friends have \u2026 built as good a Political Machine, and in less time, than was ever known to be built in this State by an Party.\u00a0 It is downright hypocrisy for you or anyone to talk against the Machine in Politics, for without it you or anyone else cannot succeed politically.\"<\/p>\r\nIn his third try for governor in 1900, La Follette succeeded.\u00a0 He had made direct primaries a cornerstone of his campaign, and he remained committed to the cause.\u00a0 By 1904, Wisconsin adopted this measure. La Follette became a national figure of reform, speaking throughout the Midwest.\u00a0 He captured the mood of a disgruntled electorate, looking for ways to blunt the domination of powerful corporate interests.\u00a0 Other states soon followed.\u00a0 Within a decade, direct primaries were used for congressional and state races throughout the nation.\r\n\r\nThe fire ignited by La Follette \u2013 later known as the Wisconsin Idea \u2013 spread across the nation.\u00a0 Other reform measures soon gained traction.\u00a0 By 1912, 22 states adopted some form of citizen referendum or initiative, allowing people to vote directly on laws.\u00a0 States began passing initiatives for the popular election of U.S. Senators.\u00a0 Congress finally followed suit, passing the 17th<\/sup> Amendment, which was ratified in 1913.\u00a0 Congress also banned corporate campaign contributions and later required disclosure of all campaign contributions.\u00a0 Remarkably, partisan leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson overcame polarization to advocate many of the Progressive Movement\u2019s reforms.\u00a0 With the passage in 1919 of the 18th<\/sup> and 19th<\/sup> amendments (Prohibition and women\u2019s suffrage, respectively), the reform movement largely came to an end.\r\n\r\nIn sum, the Progressive Movement advocated a number of reforms to make government more responsive to the people.\u00a0 Those reforms were an extension of a broader reaction to the concentrated power of a few dominant industries and political gridlock at the time.\u00a0 Reforms focused on giving voters a say in different ways:\u00a0 in the selection of candidates for the general election, the right to vote for candidates of either party on a secret ballot, direct action on laws, the election of U.S. Senators and extension of the franchise to women.\u00a0 The major parties acceded to these reforms since the proposals did not threaten the two-party system.\u00a0 Instead of questioning the lack of competition endemic to our system, reformers looked to give voters more say within the two parties.\r\n\r\nToday, direct primaries are a unique feature of American democracy.\u00a0 States employ several types of direct primaries.\u00a0 About a dozen states hold \u201cclosed\u201d primaries.\u00a0 To vote in this primary, voters must register as a Democrat or Republican prior to the election.\u00a0 They receive a ballot with only that party\u2019s candidates on it.\u00a0 Other states have \u201csemi-open\u201d primaries.\u00a0 There, voters can decide their party affiliation at the polling site and then vote for that party\u2019s candidates.\u00a0 The remaining states hold \u201copen\u201d primaries.\u00a0 Here, voters receive a ballot that allows them to vote for either party\u2019s candidates regardless of the voter\u2019s registration.\u00a0 All of these approaches show how little control parties have over the selection of their candidates.\u00a0 In essence, voters decide a party\u2019s slate regardless of voters\u2019 commitment to a particular party and its principles.\r\n\r\nThe Path of Other Democracies<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIt is useful to consider the path taken by other democracies in the early 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Those choices had deep and lasting implications for the role of political parties.\u00a0 Other industrializing countries faced similar social and economic problems at this time.\u00a0 Wealth inequality, loss of agricultural jobs and worker unrest coursed through many European nations.\u00a0 While these countries did not have to contend with the aftermath of a Civil War, they could not escape the growing pains of the industrial revolution.\u00a0 Powerful corporate interests dominated politics and violently suppressed workers trying to organize and strike similar to the U.S.\r\n\r\nJonathan Rodden\u2019s How Cities Lose<\/u> recounts the reform movement in European countries at the beginning of the 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Like the U.S., most of those countries had a two-party system \u2013 typically a more liberal party situated in urban areas and a conservative party based in the countryside. \u00a0Unlike the U.S., many European countries still required voters to own property or have a certain income in order to vote.\u00a0 Therefore, efforts to make democracy more responsive to the people focused on extending the franchise to all adult men.\u00a0 The energy for this movement largely came from workers in urban areas.\u00a0 Consequently, the roots of the reform movement in Europe differed from the U.S., where energy initially came from rural areas fighting economic dislocation.\u00a0 And as a result, politicians reacted differently to the unrest.\r\n\r\nPolitical parties in Europe faced a unique challenge.\u00a0 The same people agitating for the right to vote were aligning with the emerging Workers or Socialist Parties.\u00a0 The existing parties of the left supported new voters\u2019 rights but understood the threat posed to their existence by new parties capable to winning a majority of votes in urban districts.\u00a0 Liberal parties urged newly franchised workers to join them rather than backing new Workers or Socialist Parties, arguing that such division would allow conservatives to win more seats.\u00a0 It was a classic coordination problem.\u00a0 As in most cases, the strategic alliances were difficult to maintain over time.\r\n\r\nEventually, the coalitions fell apart as more workers gained the franchise.\u00a0 Socialist candidates began winning seats in dense, urban districts.\u00a0 However, the seat share won by socialists did not nearly match their vote total.\u00a0 For example, the Social Democrats in Germany won more votes than any other party from 1890 to 1907 but never won a majority of seats.\u00a0 This outcome reflected the substantial number of wasted votes (i.e., the number of votes cast beyond that needed to win in a district) in dense, urban districts.\u00a0 Conservatives enjoyed the advantage of broad geographic distribution of their votes.\u00a0 In other words, the plurality voting system allowed conservatives to win many more seats by small margins while workers won a few seats by large margins.\r\n\r\nThe growing disconnect between electoral outcomes and votes spurred massive social unrest.\u00a0 Street violence increased and some European nations faced the prospect of civil war.\u00a0 Socialist and liberal party leaders began searching for political reforms that could reverse their disadvantage.\u00a0 They found inspiration from one of the great intellects of the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 In 1861, John Stuart Mills wrote \u201cOf True and False Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority Only.\u201d \u00a0In it, Stuart laid out the rationale for proportional representation:\r\n

\"In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately but proportionately.\u00a0 As a majority of the electors would always have a majority of the representatives; but a minority of the electors would always have a minority of the representatives.\u00a0 Man for man, they would be as fully represented as the majority.\u00a0 Unless they are, there is not equal government, but a government of inequality and privilege; one part of the people over the rest; there is a party whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them contrary to all just government, but above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality as its very root and foundation.\"<\/p>\r\nLeading reformers in Europe seized on this idea at the turn of the century.\u00a0 They advocated replacing small single member districts with larger multi-member districts.\u00a0 Each party\u2019s candidates would be placed on a list, and a party\u2019s representation would be drawn from the list in proportion to its vote share.\u00a0 In other words, a party that received 30% of the vote would win 30% of the seats.\u00a0 Socialist and labor parties made proportional voting a top priority in addition to expansion of the franchise.\u00a0 By the time Europe ended its \u201cprogressive movement\u201d in 1920, most countries had adopted proportional voting.\u00a0 It proved a life saver for legacy parties.\u00a0 Instead of being squeezed out, as happened to so many third parties in the U.S., parties maintained relevance and a share of the seats.\u00a0 Interestingly, even rural-based conservative parties such as the Catholic Party in Belgium supported these reforms because it allowed them to pick up seats in urban areas where they would not otherwise do so.\r\n\r\nProportional voting allowed parties to remain vital to the democratic project.\u00a0 Parties choose their candidates to place on the ballot.\u00a0 They discipline candidates by replacing them when they do not support the party\u2019s agenda.\u00a0 Members of parties work closely to build majority coalitions once in government.\u00a0 They also run unified campaigns under the party label to drive up turnout.\u00a0 Therefore, parties remain central to channeling conflict productively and solving the problem of collective action.\u00a0 Voters strongly identify with parties and turnout typically approaches 70% and higher.\u00a0 While European countries lagged far behind the U.S. with the adoption and expansion of democracy, the reforms they adopted happened to position them well for the future \u2013 at least after the shocks of World War I, the Depression and World War II.\r\n\r\nElectoral Reform and Implications for Parties<\/strong>\r\n\r\nMany of the reforms passed during the Progressive Era did strengthen our democracy.\u00a0 The secret ballot (also known as the \u201cAustralian ballot\u201d) helped ensure elections better reflected the private, decentralized and independent judgment of voters.\u00a0 The popular election of U.S. Senators and suffrage for women meant that more segments of society would be reflected in governmental decision-making.\u00a0 These steps strengthened the cohesion of society.\u00a0 The citizen-led initiative or referendum allowed voters to circumvent the legislature to advance new ideas.\u00a0 It provides a critical tool to overcome entrenched political self-interest and has become a hallmark for reform efforts to make politics more inclusive and open.\u00a0 For example, most states that have managed to limit the practice of gerrymandering have done so through citizen initiatives.\r\n\r\nDirect primaries are another story.\u00a0 This reform aligned with a fervor to break the bond between powerful corporate interests and political machines.\u00a0 However, it conflated political parties with the corrupting influence of corporations.\u00a0 Its proponents did not understand that concentrated power will seek to corrupt any system before it whether it be a candidate or party.\u00a0 The answer is to diminish and contain the source of power rather than the targets of such power.\u00a0 More importantly, the proponents of direct primaries lacked an appreciation for the role parties play in democracy.\u00a0 Parties emerged organically to operationalize the two main innovations of democracy:\u00a0 turning conflict into an engine of progress and tapping the collective mind.\u00a0 Weakening the control of party leaders only serves to weaken those functions.\r\n\r\nThe idea that making parties operate more democratically misses this point entirely.\u00a0 Maurice Duverger recognized the distinction between the role played by parties in the functioning of democracy and democracy itself in his seminal work Political Parties<\/u>:\r\n

\"The organizational structure of political parties is certainly not in conformity with orthodox notions of democracy.\u00a0 Their internal structure is essentially autocratic and oligarchic; their leaders are not really appointed by the members, in spite of appearances, but co-opted or nominated by the central body; they tend to form a ruling class, isolated from the militants, a cast that is more or less exclusive.\u00a0 In so far as they are elected, the party oligarchy is widened without ever becoming a democracy, for the election is carried out by the members, who are a minority in comparison with those who give their votes to the party in the general election.\"<\/p>\r\nIn other words, parties by their nature do not operate democratically.\u00a0 A party\u2019s task is to produce an attractive product for voters in a democracy and provide structure so that its members deliver on the party\u2019s principles once in office.\u00a0 By handing over one of the most powerful tools parties have \u2013 selecting a candidate to stand in a general election \u2013 direct primaries hamper the ability of parties to perform their role.\r\n\r\nLa Follette\u2019s personal animus toward parties proved costly for American democracy.\u00a0 By including direct primaries in the agenda of reform, political parties waned in influence.\u00a0 Since voters could select candidates for the parties, candidates were no longer beholden to the direction of parties.\u00a0 They began to run candidate-centered campaigns. By the end of the 20th<\/sup> century, parties were reduced to providing a support system for candidates.\u00a0 Now candidates are clearly in charge, raising the money and directing resources in campaigns.\u00a0 \u00a0Parties attempt to bring efficiencies to campaigns by maintaining data bases and increasing the bargaining power of candidates when negotiating for consultant services.\u00a0 But candidates control the resources often viewing parties as much of a distraction as a help.\r\n\r\nThe diminishment of parties has undermined a key function played by parties in strengthening democracy.\u00a0 The elimination of parties\u2019 role in running campaigns weakened their ability to address the calculus of voting.\u00a0 Previously, voters could rely on the party label in making choices.\u00a0 With candidate led campaigns, the cost of voting has increased.\u00a0 Now, voters must expend additional resources to learn about a multitude of candidates on the ballot.\u00a0 Moreover, each candidate has to raise the resources to mobilize voters to the polls rather than a centralized operation led by the parties.\u00a0 Turnout has suffered.\u00a0 Once the Progressive reforms went into effect, turnout in U.S. elections dropped significantly. \u00a0As mentioned, turnout approached 80% throughout the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Once direct primaries were adopted, turnout dropped to between 50-60% of registered voters.\u00a0 No longer did voters have a unified party brand when making decisions nor did they have an organization that was laser focused on solving the calculus of voting as they did in the 19th<\/sup> century.\r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAmericans generally have a negative view toward parties.\u00a0 Frustration over politicians, government and elections breeds frustration with parties.\u00a0 These essays have attempted to provide a deeper understanding of parties and the role they play in democracy.\u00a0 Our Founding Fathers did not despise political parties.\u00a0 Rather, they created a new institution that came to be known as the political party to solve certain problems.\u00a0 Parties gave structure to conflict in a democracy, translating individual preferences into societal ones through legislative action.\u00a0 They also helped solve the challenge of collective action by mobilizing citizens who otherwise have little reason to vote.\u00a0 Unfortunately, reformers targeted parties during the Progressive Movement and reduced their effectiveness.\u00a0 Such weakening of parties raised the cost of voting and participation in democracy has suffered.\u00a0 When we turn our attention to contemporary challenges facing democracy, we will see even bigger problems arising from the weakening of parties.\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\n "}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-30T10:36:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/","name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-09-30T10:36:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-progressive-movement-and-the-decline-of-parties-in-america\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Common Cause North Carolina","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}