The Platform-Writing Process

Candidate-Centered Platforms in 1992

Bibliographic Data

ID4295345
AuthorsL Sandy Maisel (corresponding author)
Year1993
Volume108
Issue4
Pages671-698
Publication date1993-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Science Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-3195 • E-ISSN: 1538-165X
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2152404
OpenAlexW2329855954
LanguageEN
Citations received15

One never knows what to make of party platforms. On the one hand, they are the most important document that a political party produces. The platform tells you what the party stands for; it defines in explicit terms why partisans deserve to be elected. On the other hand, they are worthless pieces of paper. How many citizens can tell you what is in the parties' platforms? Who knows where the differences really lie? Who cares? Political scientists express this same ambivalence. Those who favor responsible political parties see the platforms as central to the parties' missions; they give citizens reasons to support the parties' candidates. They lay the foundation for the policies that the parties will adopt if elected. Voters can measure party performance against party promises and hold future candidates accountable for past actions.1 Gerald Pomper and Jeff Fishel have both demonstrated that platforms do matter, that the two major parties' platforms can be used to distinguish the parties and that, once elected, party officeholders enact significant

Business · Mathematics education · Operating system · Political science · Process (computing) · Process management · Writing process · Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism · Computer Science · Political Systems and Governance · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub