A political realignment is a set of sharp changes in party related ideology, issues, leaders, regional bases, demographic bases, and/or the structure of powers within a government. Often also referred to as a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election, in the academic fields of political science and political history. These changes result in a restructuring of political focus and power that lasts for decades, usually replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections as this is where it is most common, though the experience also does occur in governments across the globe. It is generally accepted that the United States has had five distinct party systems, each featuring two major parties attracting a consistent political coalition and following 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. As well as 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 are known in the field of comparative politics as) party systems—with 1828, for example, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US.
Political realignments can be sudden (1–4 years) or can take place more gradually (5–20 years). Most often, as demonstrated in V. O. Key Jr.'s (1955) original hypothesis, a single "critical election" marks a sudden realignment.[1] However he also argued that a cyclical process of realignment exists, wherein political views within interests groups gradually begin to separate which he designated as secular realignment.[2] 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, however, and usage among political scientists and historians does vary. In the US, Walter Dean Burnham argued for a 30–38 year "cycle" of realignments.[3] Many of the elections often included in the Burnham 38-year cycle are considered "realigning" for different reasons.
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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16]
Voter realignments
A central component of realignment is the change in behavior of voting groups. Realignment withing 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.[17][18]
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.[19][20]
Cultural Issues
The major political parties in the United States have held the same name for over a century, yet it is not doubt that their values and intentions have changed. [21]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, the LGBTQ community has become a growing factor in politics around the world. Their increasing presence has created many important concerns that are more widespread and broadcast than they once would have been. These issues and concerns are acknowledged by political parties, thus creating small shifts and realignments. For example, in 2022, there were 315 bills introduced to various state legislatures across the United States that were found to be anti-LGBTQ. Out of these 315, 29 of them were signed into the state's law.[22] These new laws will ultimately lead to public divergence and political realignment as parties support different values. This shows the reality of cultural changes (publicized LGBTQ presence) and it's correlation to not only rights and politics, but the reality of political parties shifting to adhere to certain values and goals regarding a specific social issue.
While further discussing evolving social issues and it's 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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.
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.
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.[26]
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.[26] 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.)[citation needed]
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.[27]
The status of this election is hotly disputed; some political scientists, such as Jerome Clubb, do not consider it a realigning election. Other political scientists and historians, such as Kleppner and Burnham consider this the ultimate realignment and emphasize that the rules of the game had changed, the leaders were new, voting alignments had changed, and a whole new set of issues came to dominance as the old Civil War-era issues faded away. Funding from office holders was replaced by outside fund raising from business in 1896 — a major shift in political history. Furthermore, McKinley's tactics in beating William Jennings Bryan (as developed by Mark Hanna) marked a sea change in the evolution of the modern campaign. McKinley raised a huge amount of money from business interests, outspending Bryan by 10 to 1. Bryan meanwhile invented the modern technique of campaigning heavily in closely contested states, the first candidate to do so.[28] Bryan's message of populism and class conflict marked a new direction for the Democrats. McKinley's victory in 1896 and repeat in 1900 was a triumph for pluralism, as all sectors and groups shared in the new prosperity brought about by his policy of rapid industrial growth.[29][30]
While Republicans lost House seats in 1896, this followed a massive two-election gain: from 25.9% in 1890 to 34.8% in 1892 and 71.1% in 1894, for a total 45.2% gain. Republicans lost 13.4% in 1896, but still held 57.7% of House seats.
In terms of correlations among counties, the election of 1896 is a realignment flop, but this is only a problem if realignment is considered to occur in single elections. Rather, if realignment is thought of as a generational or long-term political movement, then change will occur over several elections, even if there is one "critical" election defining the new alignment. So, as pointed out above, the 1896 realignment really began around 1892, and the 130 seat GOP gain in 1894, the all-record for a house election, meant there were almost no seats left to pick up in 1896. However, the presidential election in 1896 is usually considered the start of the new alignment since the national election allowed the nation to make a more conscious decision about the future of industrial policy by selecting McKinley over Bryan, making this the defining election in the realignment.[31] The election of 1876 passes the numbers test much better compared to 1896 alone, and Mayhew (2004) argues it resulted in far more drastic changes in United States politics: Reconstruction came to a sudden halt, African-Americans in the South would soon be completely disenfranchised, and politicians began to focus on new issues (such as tariffs and civil service reform).
Of all the realigning elections, this one musters the most agreement from political scientists and historians; it is the archetypal realigning election.[31] FDR's admirers such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have argued that New Deal policies, developed in response to the crash of 1929 and the miseries of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics. More critical historians such as Carl Degler and David Kennedy see a great deal of continuity with Hoover's energetic but unsuccessful economic policies. In many ways, Roosevelt's legacy still defines the Democratic Party; he forged an enduring New Deal Coalition of big city machines, the White South, intellectuals, labor unions, Catholics, Jews, and Westerners. In 1936, African-Americans were added to the coalition (African-Americans had previously been denied the vote or voted Republican). For instance, Pittsburgh, which was a Republican stronghold from the Civil War up to this point, suddenly became a Democratic stronghold, and has elected a Democratic mayor to office in every election since this time.
The Democrats went from controlling 37.7% of House seats in 1928 to 49.6% in 1930 and 71.9% in 1932, for a total gain of 34.2% in two elections.
In the Senate, the Democrats went from controlling 40.6% of seats in 1928 to 49% in 1930 and 61.5% in 1932, for a total gain of 20.9% in two elections.
Other possible political realignments
Some debate exists today as to what elections could be considered realigning elections after 1932.[32] Although several candidates have been proposed, there is no widespread agreement:
The 1874 elections saw a resurgence of the Democratic Party. Discontent with the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and the economic depression known at the time as the Panic of 1873, and the slow return of disillusioned Liberal Republicans from their 1872 third party ticket, all energized the Democrats. The Democrats had not controlled either chamber of Congress since before the War. The realignment meant the Democrats generally controlled the House of Representatives from 1875 to their massive defeat in 1894. Republicans eked out very narrow wins in most of the presidential elections in that period. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, enacted in the lame-duck session of Congress following the 1874 elections, was the last major Reconstruction law, and it was chiefly of symbolic value. The new strength of the Democrats marked the end of Reconstruction legislation. With the end of Reconstruction, the 11 former states of the Confederacy became a dominant-party system known as the Solid South. The tariff and especially monetary policy emerged as the great ideological debates after 1874.[33][34]
The 1968 election is often cited due to the innovative campaign strategy of Nixon.[35] In running against Hubert Humphrey, he used what became known as the Southern strategy. He appealed to white voters in the South with a call for "states' rights", which they interpreted as meaning that the federal government would no longer demand the forced busing of school children as ordered by federal courts. Democrats protested that Nixon exploited racial fears in winning the support of white southerners and northern white ethnics.[36] Roosevelt's New Deal coalition had lasted over 30 years but after the urban riots and Vietnam crisis of the mid-1960s one by one the coalition partners peeled away until only a hollow core remained, setting the stage for a GOP revival. Nixon's downfall postponed the realignment which came about under Reagan, as even the term "liberalism" fell into disrepute.[citation needed]
Including this as a realignment preserves the roughly 30-year cyclical pattern: 1896 to 1932, 1932 to 1964, and 1964 to 1994.
For political scientists, 1964 was primarily an issue-based realignment. The classic study of the 1964 election, by Carmines and Stimson (1989), shows how the polarization of activists and elites on race-related issues sent clear signals to the general public about the historic change in each party's position on Civil Rights.[citation needed] Notably, while only 50% of African-Americans self-identified as Democrats in the 1960 National Election Study, 82% did in 1964, and the numbers are higher in the 21st century. The clearest indicator of the importance of this election was that Deep Southern states, such as Mississippi, voted Republican in 1964. In contrast, much of the traditional Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Upper Midwest voted Democratic. Vermont and Maine, which stood alone voting against FDR in 1936, voted for LBJ in 1964.
Many analysts do not consider 1968 a realigning election because control of Congress did not change; the Democrats would control the Senate until 1980 (and again from 1986 to 1994) and the House until 1994.[31] Also missing was a marked change in the partisan orientation of the electorate. Importantly, these two elections are consistent with the theory in that the old New Deal issues were replaced by Civil Rights issues as the major factor explaining why citizens identified with each party. Other scholars[37] contend that this is the beginning of a thirty-year dealignment, in which citizens generally moved towards political independence, which ended with the 1994 election.
In this election, Ronald Reagan won a sweeping victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter, who won only six states (plus the District of Columbia), which accounted for just 10% of the electoral vote. Republicans also took control of the Senate for the first time in over 25 years. (See Reagan's coattails.)
The 1980 election can be seen as an ideological realignment, as it marked the beginning of the Reagan Era and marked a realignment towards conservatism and conservative policies.[38][39][40] In addition, Reagan Democrats are a result of his presidency and campaigns.[40] Many scholars viewed Reagan's policies as sufficiently new to consider this a realigning election.[41]
On the other hand, critics like Mayhew (2004) note that control of the House did not change, nor even come close to changing, at this time. Republicans actually held fewer House seats in 1983 than they held in 1973. In addition, the Republicans lost the Senate again only six years later, leading some to conclude that the Senators simply rode in on Reagan's coattails, and did not represent a true shift in the ideological preferences of their constituents. Also absent was a shift in partisan alignment from public opinion polls.[42] Both liberals, such as Nobel laureatePaul Krugman, and conservatives, such as Reagan communications directorPat Buchanan, would also argue that Nixon's victory in 1968 set the stage for Reagan's victory, and the fact that Reagan did so well in Southern states, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, as well as the fact that some of Reagan's rhetoric involving law and order and states' rights seemed to mirror Nixon's Southern Strategy seem to bear this fact out.[43][44]
Clinton carried several states that had previously been Republican or swing states in both the Northeast and on the West Coast. Most notably, the largest state California switched from being a reliably Republican state to being consistently Democratic: it has been carried by Democratic candidates ever since. Other states that switched and have remained with the Democrats since include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont. In contrast, despite the fact Clinton came from the South, he only carried four of the former Confederate states: Arkansas (his home state), Louisiana, Tennessee (his vice president's home state) and Georgia, confirming it as a Republican base of support.
Since 1992, the Democratic candidate has won the national popular vote in every presidential election except 2004 and 2024, suggesting some manner of national realignment away from the Republican domination of the 1970s and 1980s. This national tendency toward Democratic presidential candidates did not necessarily translate to Democratic victories in congressional elections. However Republicans remained competitive nationally, making historic gains in the 1994 and 2010 midterms, although the composition of the electorate in presidential versus midterm elections vary significantly.[45]
This election is now generally seen as a realigning election by political scientists.[46] Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate, taking control of both chambers for the first time since 1954. In addition, control of the House continued until 2007. Newt Gingrich, who promoted a "Contract with America", successfully nationalized the campaign by coordinating races around the country. The overwhelming nature of the Republicans' victory points to a realignment; the party gained 54 seats, while neither party would gain more than a handful of seats in any election until 2006.
The GOP gained seats in 43 of 46 state houses. These gains continued into the next decade, so that by 2002 the GOP held the majority of state legislative seats for the first time in fifty years.[46]
Notably, the period of party decline and mass dealignment appears to have ended in the 1990s. Strength of partisanship, as measured by the National Election Study, increased in the 1990s, as does the percentage of the mass public who perceive important differences between each party.[46]
This election also indicates the rise of religious issues as one of the most important cleavage in American politics.[citation needed] While Reagan's election hinted at the importance of the religious right, it was the formation of the Christian Coalition (the successor to the Moral Majority) in the early 1990s that gave Republicans organizational and financial muscle, particularly at the state level.[47] By 2004 the media portrayed the political nation as divided into "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democratic) states, with reputed differences in cultural attitudes and politics between the two blocs.
The Republicans made historic inroads in the Solid South where they picked up total of 19 House seats. Going into the election, House Democrats outnumbered House Republicans. Afterwards, the Republicans outnumbered Democrats for the first time since Reconstruction.[48]
In the 2008 elections, the Democrats expanded their majorities in the Congress, and won the presidency decisively. This was due to the momentum carried over from the Democrats' 2006 successes, as well as the continued unpopularity of President George W. Bush, whose administration was now faced with a financial crisis and economic recession. Some people believe that 2008 is possibly a realigning election with a long-lasting impact, just as the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt was in 1932 and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 were.[49][50] President Obama was reelected in the 2012 election as well, becoming only the third Democrat to win an absolute majority of the popular vote more than once[51] while losing only two entire states that he had won in 2008.[52]
On the other hand, the Republican Party experienced major gains two years later in 2010, retaking the house with a gain of 63 seats, the largest Republican gain in 72 years. Additionally, the Republican Party gained 6 seats in the Senate, slimming the Democratic majority. Despite Obama's reelection in 2012, the Republicans had another strong performance in the 2014 midterms; they not only increased their majority in the House and recaptured the Senate, but also made gains in the gubernatorial races and other statewide and local races, resulting in 31 Republican governorships and 68 state legislative houses under Republican control, thus increasing their influence to the largest Republican majority in the entire country in nearly a century.[53][54][55]
In this election, Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all Midwestern and/or Rust Belt states that some had previously considered safely Democratic, though those states were close in several prior elections. Trump also came close to winning New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.[56]
The Republicans set a modern record of holding 33 governorships and fully controlling 32 state legislatures.[57]
However, like with the 2008 Obama election, two years later in the 2018 United States elections, the Republican Party lost control of the House in a loss of 40 seats, but gained two seats in the Senate, so the full effect of the 2016 election and Trump Presidency as a critical election remains to be seen.
Furthermore, Donald Trump lost to former vice president and Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election. In particular, Trump lost the three states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that were cited as key to his victory in 2016, although by relatively narrow margins compared to the Obama era.
The Republican candidate for President, Donald Trump, managed to win all competitive states with a margin of 1% or more over the expected support reported by the polling. The only state that was not over 1% in expected support was Wisconsin which came in with a Republican win of .86% over the expected.[1]
Donald Trump is the first Republican Presidential candidate to win the popular vote in two decades, George W. Bush in 2004 was the last candidate to achieve this.[58]
Republicans also secured a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Republican governors holding 27 out of the 50 states.
Canada
The history of the critical realigning elections in Canada, both nationally and in the provinces, is covered by Argyle (2011).[59]
Federal
According to recent scholarship, there have been four party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies.[60] Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history[61]
The first party system emerged from pre-Confederation colonial politics, had its "heyday" from 1896 to 1911 and lasted until the Conscription Crisis of 1917, and was characterized by local patronage administered by the two largest parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The second system emerged following the First World War, and had its heyday from 1935 to 1957, was characterized by regionalism and saw the emergence of several protest parties, such as the Progressives, the Social Credit Party, and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.
The third system emerged in 1963 and had its heyday from 1968 to 1983 and began to unravel thereafter. The two largest parties were challenged by a strong third party, the New Democratic Party. Campaigns during this era became more national in scope due to electronic media, and involved a greater focus on leadership. The dominant policy of the era was Keynesian economics.
The fourth party system has involved the rise of the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. It saw most parties move to one-member-one-vote leadership contests, and a major reform to campaign finance laws in 2004. The fourth party system has been characterized by market-oriented policies that abandoned Keynesian policies, but maintained the welfare state.
Clarkson (2005) shows how the Liberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" under Laurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s under Mackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan-Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The 1993 election — categorized by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system, saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party-system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system, has chiefly benefited the Liberals.[62]
1896 saw a Liberal victory under Sir Wilfrid Laurier. From the 1867 election until 1896, the Conservative Party of John A. Macdonald had governed Canada, excepting a single term from 1873 to 1878. The Liberals had struggled to retake office, under Laurier and his predecessor, Edward Blake. 1896 was the first election held after the death of Macdonald in 1891, and the Conservatives had been in complete disarray in the ensuing years, with no fewer than four leaders. The Liberals would remain in office until 1911. Beyond that, political scientists often consider this election that made the Liberal Party the dominant force in Canadian politics, holding office for more than two thirds of the time between 1896 and 2006.[63]
The election of 1984 not only saw Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives win a landslide majority, but their victory was aided in large part by a massive breakthrough in Quebec: winning 58 seats as compared to the one Quebec seat they won in 1980. Mulroney successfully campaigned in Quebec on a message that Trudeau's Liberals had "sold out" the province during the process of patriating the Canadian constitution in 1982, due to the fact that Quebec never formally signed on to the new constitution. The Liberals were cut down to only 17 seats, all but four of them in Montreal. Although Quebec had been a Liberal stronghold since 1896 (with the exception of 1958), from 1984 the Liberals did not win a majority of seats in the province until the 2015 election.
1993 saw not only the sweeping success of the Liberals under Jean Chrétien, but also the fracturing of Progressive Conservatives' support base to regional parties in Quebec and the western provinces, resulting in a five party political system with the Liberals as the dominant party.[64] The Conservative majority election victories in 1984 and 1988 were based on a "Grand Coalition" between socially conservative populists from the West, Quebec nationalists, and fiscal conservatives from Ontario and the Maritimes, making it difficult for the Mulroney government to balance these diverse interests. During his second term, Mulroney's policies were unpopular, while the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords frustrated Quebec and stirred up Western alienation. New regional parties which formed in protest to Mulroney's government, the Bloc Québécois in Quebec and the Reform Party in the west won many seats formerly held by the PCs despite a lack of national support. The New Democratic Party, the longtime third party in parliament, fell from 43 seats to nine. The unpopularity of the provincial NDP governments in Ontario and BC reflected badly on the federal NDP, also their endorsement of the Charlottetown Accord and Quebec nationalism cost them support among organized labour and rural voters in the west, which switched their support to Reform. Meanwhile, the Progressive Conservatives were nearly wiped out, falling from 156 seats to only two—the worst defeat of a sitting government at the federal level.
The Liberals under Chrétien would win a further two consecutive majorities in 1997 and 2000, while never being seriously challenged as the largest party. The Progressive Conservatives never recovered, winning 20 (of 301) seats in 1997 and 12 in 2000 before merging with the Reform Party's successor, the Canadian Alliance, to form the new Conservative Party of Canada in late 2003. Due to competition with the Liberals for left-leaning voters, the New Democrats had mixed successes in the next several elections, winning 21 in 1997 but dropping back to 13 in 2000, unable to approach their high-water mark showing until 2006.
While Paul Martin's Liberals retained enough seats to continue as the government, it saw the re-emergence of a united Conservative Party and the resurgence of Bloc Québécois, resulting in a four party system. This was also the first of three elections where no party managed a majority of seats.
Alberta
Alberta has had a tradition of one-party dominance, where a party forms government for an extended period before losing power. From 1905 to 2015, Alberta only changed governments (often called "dynasties") four times, with no party ever returning to government. The elections of 1921, 1935, 1971 and 2015 each marked the end of a particular dynasty and a realignment of the province's party system.[65]
The 2019 election has also been suggested as a realignment: although the New Democratic Party was defeated after only one term, they retained a strong base of seats and remained competitive in opinion polling and fundraising, pointing to a possible development of a competitive two-party system against the United Conservative Party.[66]
2001 British Columbia general election - The centre-right coalesced around the BC Liberal Party, which won 77 of 79 seats and 57.6% of the popular vote. This essentially rebuilt much of the Socred coalition around the BC Liberal Party. At the same time, the NDP faced significant unpopularity after several scandals (such as the Fast Ferry Scandal), and failed to break the Liberal majority until 2017.
2024 British Columbia general election - The centre-right rallied around the Conservative Party of BC, which won 44 of 93 seats and 43.28% of the popular vote. The first time the party won seats in almost 50 years and it best electoral performance in 72 years. The election saw the once dominate BC United (formerly the BC Liberals), who served as the official opposition, withdraw from the race before the election to avoid splitting the vote.
Quebec
A considerable number of Quebec general elections have been known characterized by high seat turnovers, with certain ones being considered realigning elections, notably:
The 1960 election, which not only ended 15 continuous years of Union Nationale rule and precipitated its gradual decline, but ushered in the Quiet Revolution under Jean Lesage.
The 1976 election, which saw René Lévesque's Parti Québécois not only make a breakthrough in the National Assembly. It also made sovereignty the dominant political issue from then on, with parties subsequently aligning themselves on a sovereignty–federalist spectrum.
The 2018 election suggested the end of the sovereignty-federalist split due to the emergence of the Coalition Avenir Québec, which campaigned on a nationalist platform while explicitly ruling out sovereignty.
Since the 1990s, provincial elections in Quebec show increasing voter realignment and volatility in party support.[67] The Quebec Liberal Party (unaffiliated with the federal Liberals since 1955) been a major party since Confederation, but they have faced different opposition parties.
The left-wing Indian National Congress, which had led the country to independence from the United Kingdom in 1947 and had won every general election since the first post-independence election in 1952, lost power to the Janata Party led by Morarji Desai, after the immensely unpopular imposition of The Emergency by Prime MinisterIndira Gandhi since 1975. Both Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay lost their seats.
The Congress party suffered a major decline on both national and state level afterwards with BJP occupying the dominant position Congress used to have.[68] Congress was defeated by BJP again in 2019 election. Till 2019, Congress was never out of power for two consecutive terms.[69]
Likud defeated the Alignment, led by the Israel Labor Party, allowing Likud to lead a government for the first time ever. For the first 29 years of Israel's independence, politics had been dominated by the left-wing parties Labor and its predecessor, Mapai. The leadership of the right, especially Menachem Begin, were considered by the Left to be beyond the pale, and as Ben Gurion had said in the early years of the State, he would enter coalitions with any parties, except the communists and Begin. Prior to this election a hypothetical bloc of right-wing and religious parties would rarely ever approach the threshold of a majority government; however since 1977, a combination of these two blocs have made up the majority of Israel's electorate since then with exceptions of a few elections but no longer running far behind in comparison to pre-1977. Due to corruption in the Labor Party, many former Labor voters defected to the new Democratic Movement for Change, which won 15 seats and finished in third place, behind the Likud with 46 seats and Alignment (Labor plus Mapam) with 32 seats. The DMC collapsed within three years, allowing Labor to rebound at the next election. Labor and Likud dominated Israeli politics until 2003 when Labor went into sudden decline due to a backlash against the failed Oslo Accords and the outbreak of the Second Intifada.
Though more popular and consistently ranked higher in the polls, James Soong failed to gain the ruling Kuomintang's (KMT) nomination over incumbent Vice President Lien Chan. As a result, he announced his candidacy as an independent candidate, and was consequently expelled from the party. The split in the KMT vote resulted in a victory for Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party, even though he won only 39% of the popular vote. After the election, Soong founded the People First Party, which attracted members from the KMT and the pro-unification New Party, which was by that time beginning to fade. Angry from the defeat, the KMT expelled chairman Lee Teng-hui, who was president until 2000 and was widely suspected of causing the KMT split so that Chen would win. Lee then founded the pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union. The impact of these events changed the political landscape of Taiwan. Not only did the KMT lose the presidency for the first time in half a century, but its policies swung away from Lee's influence and it began intra-party reform. The two newly founded parties became far more viable than other minor parties in the past, and the multi-party nature of Taiwan's politics was confirmed by the legislative elections of 2001. The KMT would not return to power until 2008 under the leadership of Ma Ying-jeou.
This election was notable in that every party in the previous Grand National Assembly of Turkey was ejected from Parliament, as none of them crossed the 10% threshold. This not only included the governing coalition of the Democratic Left Party, Motherland Party and Nationalist Movement Party, but the largest opposition party, the True Path Party. The AKP, which formed the government following this election, has dominated Turkish politics ever since.
In January 2006 the militant Hamas organisation, classified as a terrorist group by the United States government and other groups, won a landslide victory over the ruling Fatah party which had been in power under the leadership of former PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. The Bush Administration, the Quartet, and Israel all threatened to cut off foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority if Hamas refused to abandon terrorist tactics and recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist. This concession, though discussed in Hamas circles, did not come about soon enough to prevent a serious breakdown in services under Hamas government, and Western (especially American) support of Fatah paramilitaries eventually led to the breakout of the Fatah–Hamas conflict (termed a "Palestinian Civil War" by some) in December 2006. The Hamas government was suspended by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, a member of Fatah, after some weeks of fighting, and installed a caretaker government under the leadership of Salam Fayyad.
For the previous four decades, Irish politics had been dominated by the moderate nationalistIrish Parliamentary Party, which sought Home Rule within the United Kingdom. The 1918 general election was a landslide victory for the republicanSinn Féin party, which won nearly 70% of the seats. The new Sinn Féin MPs refused to take their seats in the House of Commons, and instead set up their own republican assembly called Dáil Éireann. This assembly issued a unilateral Declaration of Independence, which led to the start of the War of Independence and eventually led to Irish independence from the United Kingdom in 1922. The Irish Parliamentary Party never recovered from this defeat. The two largest parties in Ireland, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, originated from splits in the Sinn Féin party which won the election of 1918.
This election marked the Conservatives' first general election victory since 1900. More importantly, the Labour Party passed the two wings of the Liberals to become the Loyal Opposition for the first time ever. For over 200 years, the Liberals and Conservatives (and their antecedents; Tory and Whig parties) had been the UK's two major parties. However, the 1922 general election saw Labour overtake the Liberals in the political landscape. Labour and the Conservatives have been the UK's two major parties since then, and government has alternated only between the two parties ever since. The Liberals would not become a major force in UK politics again until 2010, when rebranded as the Liberal Democrats, they formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. However, the success proved to be an aberration and the Lib Dems were routed at the 2015 general election, going from 57 MPs to just 8. They were overtaken as the official UK third party by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in terms of seat numbers, following their landslide victory of 56 seats in Scotland.
This election brought the Conservatives into government where they remained for eighteen uninterrupted years. Thatcher's policies of monetarism and privatisation represented a very different strand of Conservatism to that of previous governments and a bold shift from the post-war consensus that had existed since 1945. The shockwaves led to a new centrist party being formed by some disenchanted Labour MPs (the SDP) in 1981, and a long period in opposition for Labour, during which they abandoned many socialist policies (notably Clause IV which advocated common ownership) and were transformed into "New Labour" before they returned to government in a landslide victory at the 1997 general election under the leadership of Tony Blair. At a more base level, it led to a shift in voting patterns as the traditional class-based voting started to break down and many of the working classes (in particular skilled workers, homeowners and those in southern England) voted Conservative, whilst at the same time many public sector professionals shifted their support to Labour.
The election saw Euroscepticism and Scottish Nationalism emerge as major forces in the UK political discourse, with the UK Independence Party and Scottish National Party finishing third in the popular vote and seat count respectively, and the Liberal Democrats, the country's traditional third-party, losing 49 of the 57 seats it had won at the previous general election. The SNP's victories, largely at the expense of the Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, established them as the dominant party in Scotland's electoral politics, a position they have since maintained. UKIP did not continue to enjoy electoral success (in part because they only won a single seat despite finishing third in the popular vote) and rapidly declined thereafter, but many of their policies were subsequently adopted by the Conservative Party, who formed a majority government for the first time since 1992.
The Conservative Party won a landslide victory over the Labour Party, winning many seats in the red wall, including seats that have never voted Conservative for over a century.[70] This was repeated again in 2021 local elections for mayoral and council elections, where the Conservatives made large gains in red wall areas but Labour (along with the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party) made gains in the south of England, with more educated voters.
This election resulted in Fianna Fáil, led by Éamon de Valera, becoming the largest party in Dáil Éireann for the first time. Fianna Fáil remained in power for the next sixteen years and remained the largest party in the Dáil for the next 79 years, serving as the government more than 58 of those years.
Fianna Fáil, who had governed Ireland for most of the post-independence era, were heavily defeated at the election following anger over the Irish financial crisis. For the first time, Fine Gael overtook Fianna Fáil to win the most votes and seats, while Fianna Fáil fell from first place to third place, in terms of both votes and seats. Fine Gael and the second largest party in the Dáil, the Labour Party formed a coalition government.
This election resulted in the three largest parties each winning a share of the vote between 20% and 25%, along with the best result for Sinn Féin since 1923 (37 of the 160 seats) (before the formation of Fianna Fáil). Along with the two dominant parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil not having enough seats between them (38 and 35 respectively) to have a majority (at least 80 seats needed out of 160 seats), this election resulted in a break from a two-party dominant legislature, with something closer to a three party result.
The 1973 Danish general election is referred to as the Landslide Election (Danish: Jordskredsvalget), as five new or previously unrepresented parties won seats, and more than half the members of the parliament were replaced. The Social Democratic Party, which had led a minority government until this election, lost one-third of their seats. After the election, Poul Hartling, the leader of the liberal Venstre, formed the smallest minority government in Danish history with only 22 seats, supported by the Progress Party, the Conservative People's Party, the Social Liberal Party, the Centre Democrats and the Christian People's Party.
This election saw the ruling Union of the Democratic Centre (UCD), the party that had shepherded the country through its transition to democracy, nearly wiped out. The UCD fell to only 11 seats, being replaced as the main non-socialist party by the People's Alliance (AP), and would dissolve itself as a party shortly after the election. The PSOE and AP – later transformed into the People's Party (PP) – would go on to dominate Spanish politics for the next three decades. At the same time, the PSOE would establish itself as the dominant party of Spanish politics until the 1996 general election.
This election resulted in the near-destruction of the Italian People's Party (the renamed Christian Democracy), which had been the largest party in the country since 1946. The Italian Socialist Party, a major coalition partner for the last thirty years, was decimated as well.
The election resulted in the first left of center majority in Germany on the federal level ever. The SPD came in first place for the first time since 1972 and the second time overall since the war. The election unseated Helmut Kohl after 16 years in office and having presided over German reunification and with five factions achieving more than the five percent electoral threshold of votes, it gave a first indication of the more fractious political landscape of the Berlin Republic. The FDP was removed from government after 29 consecutive years.
The elections resulted in a widely expected heavy defeat for the post-Communist Democratic Left Alliance government, with conservative parties such as Law and Justice and Civic Platform emerging as the dominant parties (and coalitions led by them) in Poland.
The election resulted the landslide victory of the Fidesz, gaining a two-thirds majority in parliament, while long-time rival, the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) had drastically weakened, ending the de facto two-party system that existed since 1998. Two major parties of the "regime change", the MDF and the SZDSZ, lost their all parliamentary seats. Two new parties, Jobbik and LMP, emerged. After 2010, under the Fidesz government led by Viktor Orbán, Hungary was reclassified by Freedom House from a democracy to a transitional or hybrid regime.[71]
Greece's two main political parties since the restoration of democracy in 1974, New Democracy and the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), saw a combined fall in support from nearly 80% in 2009 to just one-third for their role in supporting austerity measures to alleviate the Greek government-debt crisis. At this election, PASOK fell dramatically from first place to third place. This election also saw the shift of left-leaning support to the Eurosceptic Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) which has been at the forefront of opposition to the austerity measures and to the neoliberal economic policies of the European Union.
According to political theorist and former spokesman of the Brazilian Presidency (2003–2007) André Singer, the rise to power of the Worker's Party (PT) and the subsequent creation and expansion of income redistribution policies (Bolsa Família, minimum wage increases, etc.) has realigned the Brazilian political scene. Even in the event of an PT's electoral defeat, it is argued, no president would risk reverting Lula's programs, for fear of the reaction of the lower classes.[73] Lula's victory in 2002 marked the beginning of the first left-wing government since 1964.
After a 44-year domination in national politics by the Conservative Party (since 1886), the division of the conservative ticket (along with the economic crisis and the Banana Massacre) caused the first victory of the Liberal Party in half a century. This was the start of the period known as "Liberal Republic", in which the liberals kept the presidency for 16 years. Furthermore, this also started a winning-strike in legislative elections that would last until 2006, with the liberals winning in all elections they participated in with either a majority or plurality, being the first force in Congress in 68 out of 75 years.
The result meant the end of the Puntofijismo that had dominated the political atmosphere of the country in the last 40 years and the beginning of the dominance of the new MVR party, later reformed as the PSUV.
The unification of the Protectionist Party and the Anti-Socialist Party (originally the Free Trade Party) into the Commonwealth Liberal Party earlier in 1909 made this election the first under what would become a two-party system, between the democratic socialist Labor Party versus a non-Labor, conservative party as the nation's two main parties. It also marked the first elected majority government federally.
This was the first time a conservative party formed the Coalition with the Country Party which represented graziers, farmers, and regional voters in the aftermath of the 1922 election. Despite some interruptions in Coalition agreements such as in 1931, 1939 and 1987, this coalition has existed until today, now between the Liberal Party (successor to the Nationalists) and National party (which was renamed from the Country party). The Liberal/National coalition alternates in power with their main opponents, the Australian Labor Party to form the federal government of Australia at every federal election.
The first time the Liberal Party won government federally (predecessors including the Commonwealth Liberal Party and the United Australia Party), and it marked the start of twenty-three years of Liberal government and sixteen years of Menzies as prime minister (he had earlier been PM for two years from 1939). No party has held government continuously for a longer, nor has anybody been Prime Minister for longer since then.
Previously, the United Australia Party (UAP) was seen as close to big business and the upper class, while their opponents, the Australian Labor Party appealed to trade unionists, and working and lower classes. By founding the Liberal Party to replace the UAP after its 1943 election defeat, Menzies began selling his party's appeal to middle-classes which he famously called “The Forgotten People” in the class conflict between the upper and lower social classes. Forming a coalition with the Country Party (now the National Party which represented rural graziers and farmers), this resulted in a coalition of liberals, conservatives and rural interests against the democratic socialists of the Australian Labor Party. Menzies kept free-traders and economic moderates; hard-line conservatives and social liberals united under one party, the Liberal party, by focusing on Labor's “socialism” and the international threat of communism amidst the Cold War.
During his 17 years in power from 1949 to 1966, the Menzies government presided over the longest period of economic prosperity in Australia's history, lasting from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. Continued economic growth, rising standards of living, and his widening of government support for education and universities led to the vast expansion of the Australian middle class and changed the Australian workforce from manual labour towards service, science and new technology industries; the ANZUS Treaty of 1951 and voting rights for Aboriginal Australians are legacies which still stand today.[79] Arguably, Labor was forced to modernise and adopt a more social democratic approach (away from democratic socialism and nationalisation of industry) to appeal to the expanded middle class, under Gough Whitlam.
After twenty-three years of Liberal rule under Menzies, Harold Holt, John Gorton and William McMahon, the Labor Party took power in 1972, with the slogan, 'It's Time'. The significance of this election was broader than merely a change of partisan rule; elections would be no longer decided only on economic issues, but also, new issues such as the environment, Aboriginal affairs, abortion, multiculturalism, and a broader acceptance of state spending, resulted from the Whitlam government, which in many respects created a bipartisan consensus on major issues of social policy. Although the Whitlam government was relatively brief, its policy legacy—in creating new government policies for society and culture—lasted in many respects to the 1996 election, and even to the present day.
Unseating the Fraser government, thirteen years of Labor government followed, marking the longest continuous Labor government and the longest period of the Coalition in opposition. During Labor's time in government, policies and economic reforms (economic rationalism) were enacted that moved Australia to a less protectionist, more globalised economy, which included the Prices and Incomes Accord (Unions agreeing to restrict wage demands in return for lower inflation); floating the Australian dollar, permitted foreign owned banks to operate in Australia, dismantling the tariff system, and the sale of the state-owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Optus, Qantas and CSL Limited. The Labor government of Bob Hawke instituted universal healthcare in Australia with Medicare, and under his successor Paul Keating, instituted superannuation in Australia, both of which remain in place in Australia today under both successive Labor and Liberal/National coalition governments.
The recent Australian political spectrum has consisted of two major parties, the conservative Liberal Party of Australia and the democratic socialist Australian Labor Party (ALP) although as of late Labor has been more aligned with the third way. The 1996 election marked the end of the Hawke/Keating Labor government which had been in power for 13 years. The 1996 election saw the ALP lose 31 seats in the House of Representatives with primary vote result of 38.75%, the lowest for Labor since 1934. The 1996 election was significantly influenced by the demographic coined as the Howard's battlers. John Howard appealed to this demographic, traditionally lower middle-class Labor party voters who felt that Paul Keating's pursuit of "big picture" social reforms like the Australian republic and native title rights for Aboriginal Australians had alienated them by forgetting their bread-and-butter concerns and the world was changing too quickly,[81] as well as perceptions that Labor under Keating was elitist and out of touch.[82] Demographics which turned away from Labor in 1996 were outer suburb mortgage belt areas. Howard's battlers played a part in the 2007 election where the ALP under Kevin Rudd was returned to power and ended Howard's rule after 11 years. Large gains made by Labor took place in many of former Liberal strongholds in the mortgage belt due to various issues common with the 1996 election in terms of general dissatisfaction as well as high interest rates, as well as the Howard government's WorkChoices industrial relations legislation which was seen as an attack on workers' rights.
The Coalition had been in power since 2013, under prime ministers Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull's successor Scott Morrison then led the Coalition to re-election for a third term in the 2019 election, contrary to expectations that the Labor Party led by Bill Shorten would win. There was a national swing of 1.17% from the Australian Labor Party to the governing Liberal/National Coalition. However, the swing to the Coalition was higher than the national trend in provincial, rural and outer metropolitan seats which tend to have less voters with tertiary education level, particularly in the state of Queensland which is a mining state, while inner metropolitan seats with more tertiary-educated, professional, affluent, small-l liberals actually swung against the national trend, to the Labor party in two-party-preferred terms, including blue-ribbon Liberal seats in metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney.[83] An example was in the seat of Warringah,[84] where the socially conservative former Liberal PM Tony Abbott lost this blue-ribbon constituency in Sydney to a moderate, social liberal independent, Zali Steggall who campaigned on issues such as climate change. On a two-party basis, Warringah produced the largest two-party-preferred swing to Labor in the country for the 2019 election.[85]
The election established education level as the new divide in Australian politics. The difference in swing patterns could be explained by Morrison's support from the lower-educated who lived in rural electorates who are sceptical of “inner-city elites”.[85] Morrison famously held a lump of coal in parliament to boast his support for mining (despite increasing salience of climate change as a political issue), and openly expressed his non-elite attributes during the campaign, such as by playing sport and going to church. Morrison called them "the quiet Australians". Morrison ran an election campaign accusing Labor of endangering mining industries with its plans to tackle climate change, which led to a backlash against Labor in rural seats with mining industry. In contrast, his predecessor Turnbull, who had a wealthy business background, was perceived as a member of the "elite", which led to swings to Labor in lower-educated areas and John Howard's battler vote in the previous 2016 election.[85]
The new voting pattern established in 2019 was confirmed in the subsequent 2022 election, where Morrison led the Liberals to a massive defeat and Labor led by Anthony Albanese won a small majority government. This time, the Liberal Party lost heavily in inner city metro seats to Labor, the so-called teal independents and also Greens in former Liberal metropolitan heartland seats and brought the Coalition down to its worst result since 1946.[86] In particular, teals and Greens campaigned strongly on topics such as climate change and respect for women, appealing to ex-Liberal voters in its blue-ribbon metropolitan seats who saw the Liberals as too conservative, male-centric and no longer saw the party as representing them.[87][88] (However, their coalition partner, the Nationals did not lose seats and held its ground in rural and provincial seats, confirming a trend towards the Coalition in provincial, rural seats, while metropolitan seats swung more towards Labor, independents and Greens.). The primary vote for the two main parties fell to a record low, with the Coalition securing only 36% and Labor at 33%, and the crossbench (independents, Greens and minor parties) won 16 of 151 seats in the Australian House of Representatives, an all-time high, suggesting that independents and Greens were becoming a prominent 3rd bloc in Parliament, and dwindling numbers of Australian voters who identified with established political parties.[89][90]
Labor forms majority government in Queensland for the first time, and would win 13 out of 14 state elections (the exception being in 1929) until the ALP-DLP split resulted in the expulsion of Labor Premier Vince Gair from the ALP in 1957.
The Country Party forms majority government in Queensland in coalition with the Liberal Party after the split of the ruling Labor Party. The Country Party would be in Government in Queensland for the next 32 years and 11 state elections during this period, with 19 years under the premiership of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as the longest serving Premier of Queensland. The Country/National Party would even win a parliamentary majority in its own right at the Queensland state elections in 1983 and 1986, the only occasions where the party has governed a State or Territory of Australia without being in Coalition with the Liberal Party.
Labor forms majority government in Queensland for the first time since 1957, after the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police and political corruption results in the resignation of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the collapse in support for the National Party which ruled from 1957 until 1989. Labor has won 11 out of the 12 Queensland state elections since 1989, the exception being in 2012, only twice have the Liberal/National coalition formed government under Rob Borbidge (1996–1998) and Campbell Newman (2012–2015).
The coming to power of the Liberal Party is heralded as a major milestone in New Zealand history. It marked the beginning of proper party politics in New Zealand. While groupings of 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' politicians date back to the 1870s they were more akin to loose factions rather than properly organised parties. Massive economic and social reforms took place following 1890 with a progressive land tax partnered with leasehold sponsorship to stimulate agriculture which recovered the country from the Long Depression. Ballance's successor Richard Seddon carried on reforms concentrating largely on establishing welfare. Arguably the Liberal's most famous and important achievement was the enfranchisement of women, a major social upheaval which saw New Zealand become the first country in the world to allow women to vote.
The 1935 election brought Labour to power for the first time. Huge economic change resulted from their entry into office at the height of the Great Depression which was to remain in place for half a century. A generous welfare system labeled as "social security" was instigated and the country's existing free market economy was completely abandoned in favour of a Keynesian based system with higher tariffs, guaranteed prices for producers and emphasis on local manufacturing to create jobs. The government was praised for their policies resulting in another landslide victory in 1938. The political landscape was also to change, with the three party era ending with the United and Reform parties (who had formed a coalition between 1931 and 1935) completely merging into the new National Party, who remain Labour's main rival to the present day, both occupying either government or opposition ever since.
The election of the Labour Government under the leadership of David Lange and Roger Douglas, brought about radical economic reform, moving New Zealand from what had probably been one of the most protected, regulated and state-dominated system of any capitalist democracy to an extreme position at the open, competitive, free-market end of the spectrum. Social policies also took a dramatic change with New Zealand's largely socially conservative outlook being reshaped with more liberal outlooks in the Lange government's policy epitomised by policies such as the passing of anti-nuclear legislation and the legalisation of homosexuality. Foreign relations also changed dramatically with New Zealand abandoning their allegiances with the United States, largely over the issue of anti-nuclear policy, culminating in their exclusion from ANZUS by both the US and Australia.
The 1996 election was the first held under the new mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system, introduced after two referendums in 1992 and 1993, and signalled the transition from the two-party era to a new multi-party era.
^Burnham, Walter Dean (October 17, 1971). Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN978-0393093971.
^Reichley, A. James (2000). The Life of the Parties (Paperback ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 8–12.
^DiStefano, Frank J. (2019). The Next Realignment: Why America's Parties are Crumbling and What Happens Next. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 17–18. ISBN9781633885097.
^Campbell, James E. (Fall 2006). "Party Systems and Realignments in the United States, 1868-2004". Social Science History. 30 (3): 359–386. doi:10.1215/01455532-2006-002 (inactive 1 November 2024). JSTOR40267912.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
^Barreyre, Nicolas (October 2011). "The Politics of Economic Crises: The Panic of 1873, the End of Reconstruction, and the Realignment of American Politics". The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 10 (4): 403–423. doi:10.1017/s1537781411000260. JSTOR23045120. S2CID154493223.
^James P. Allan, and Richard Vengroff. "Party System Change in Québec: Evidence from Recent Elections." Southern Journal of Canadian Studies 6.1 (2015): 2-20.
Wagner, Matthew L., and Paul White Jr. Parties and Democratic Transitions: The Decline of Dominant and Hegemonic Parties (2014).
Europe
Heppell, Tim. "The conservative party leadership of David Cameron: Heresthetics and the realignment of British Politics." British Politics 8#3 (2013): 260–284.
Hutcheson, Derek S. "The Seismology Of Psephology: 'Earthquake Elections' From The Folketing To The Dáil." Representation 47#4 (2011): 471–488.
Keil, Silke, and Oscar Gabriel. "The Baden-Württemberg State Election of 2011: A Political Landslide." German Politics 21.2 (2012): 239–246.
White, Timothy J. "The 2011 Irish General Election: Critical, Realigning, Deviating, or Something Else?." Irish Journal of Public Policy 3.2 (2011).
Canada
Johnston, Richard. "Alignment, Realignment, and Dealignment in Canada: The View From Above." Canadian Journal of Political Science 46.02 (2013): 245–271.
Koop, Royce, and Amanda Bittner. "Parties and Elections after 2011 The Fifth Canadian Party System?." Parties, Elections, and the Future of Canadian Politics (2013): 308+
LeDuc, Lawrence. "The federal election in Canada, May 2011." Electoral Studies 31.1 (2012): 239–242.
Rawson, Michael F. "Forecasting realignment: An analysis of the 1993 Canadian federal election' (PhD dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada) ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1997. MQ28648).
United States
Abramowitz, Alan I. and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. "Ideological Realignment in the US Electorate." Journal of Politics 60(3):634–652.
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, John H. 2000. "Southern Politics in State and Nation". Journal of Politics 62: 643–670.
Bullock, Charles S. III, Donna R. Hoffman and Ronald Keith Gaddie, "Regional Variations in the Realignment of American Politics, 1944–2004", Social Science Quarterly v 87#3 (Sept 2006) pp 494+; Finds both critical and secular realignments at work with different patterns in each region since 1944. Stresses the collapse of Republican hegemony in the Northeast and Pacific West. 1994 election was a realigning election.
Burnham, Walter Dean. Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics (1970) (ISBN0-393-09962-8)
Cunningham, Sean P. Cowboy Conservatism: Texas and the Rise of the Modern Right (2010)
DiStefano, Frank J. The Next Realignment: Why America's Parties are Crumbling and What Happens Next (2019). (ISBN9781633885080)
Frank, Michael William. "Aggregate electoral change in United States presidential elections, 1828--1992: A reevaluation of realignment theory" (PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1996. 9712270).
Gerring, John. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996 1998. (ISBN0-521-78590-1)
Gienap, William E. The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852–1856 1987. (ISBN0-19-505501-2)
Jenkins, Shannon, Douglas D. Roscoe, John P. Frendreis, and Alan R. Gitelson. 2006. "Ten Years After the Revolution: 1994 and Partisan Control of Government" in Green and Coffey, The State of the Parties, 5th ed. (ISBN0-7425-5322-1)
Key, V.O. "A Theory of Critical Elections". The Journal of Politics, 1955. 17: 3–18.
Kleppner, Paul ed. Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1981) (ISBN0-313-21379-8)
Ladd Jr., Everett Carll with Charles D. Hadley. Transformations of the American Party System: Political Coalitions from the New Deal to the 1970s 2d ed. (1978). (ISBN0-393-09065-5)
Lichtman, Allan J. "Critical elections theory and the reality of American presidential politics, 1916–40". American Historical Review (1976) 81: 317–348. in JSTOR
Lichtman, Allan J. "Political Realignment and 'Ethnocultural' Voting in Late Nineteenth Century America", Journal of Social History, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring, 1983), pp. 55–82 in JSTOR
Manza, Jeff and Clem Brooks; Social Cleavages and Political Change: Voter Alignments and U.S. Party Coalitions, Oxford University Press, 1999 (ISBN0-19-829492-1)
McCormick, Richard P. The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era 1966. (ISBN0-393-00680-8)
Mayhew, David R. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. 2004. (ISBN0-300-09336-5)
Paulson, Arthur. Electoral Realignment and the Outlook for American Democracy (2006) (ISBN1-55553-667-0)
Pierce, Patrick Alan. "Partisan Realignment and Political Change: A Study of Four American States (New York, Iowa, California, Virginia) (PhD dissertation, Rutgers U. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1984. 8424146).
Rosenof, Theodore. Realignment: The Theory That Changed the Way We Think about American Politics (2003) (ISBN0-7425-3105-8)
Rapoport, Ronald and Walter Stone. 2005. Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence. (ISBN0-472-11453-0)
Saunders, Kyle L. and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2004. "Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate". American Politics Research 32(3):285–309.
Shafer, Byron (ed.). 1991. "Critical realignment: Dead or alive?" in The End of Realignment (University of Wisconsin Press)
Schlozman, Daniel. When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History (Princeton University Press, 2015) xiv, 267 pp.
Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000 (2001) (ISBN0-7006-1139-8)
.svg)
