Political Parties are crucial for the American government and the citizens, as it creates a formation of shared interests. Americans can choose who they think should lead the country, by looking at their political affiliation and political phenomena. Within every election, there is a Democratic and Republican nominee chosen by party leaders. Although parties may seem as if they provide "unity" and "strong partisanship", the American parties can be perceived as weak. In other words, partisanship may be strong however the parties are weak considering the parties are not on the same page. Take the 2016 election, for instance. The Democratic Party was weakened considering the party leaders failed to nominate a nominee the people desired. They chose Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, whom Democrats yearned for Sanders. Nominating Clinton over Sanders led to hidden conflicts, as well as defying competitiveness. Sanders was seen as a candidate with high potential that will advance the American people's goals. Republicans chose Donald Trump, who prevailed the election considering there was no point in competitiveness. Clinton was able to be outnumbered, considering she lost by the Electoral College system. Failure of choosing the correct nominee cost Democrats the 2016 election. Why is it that the citizens of America desired one candidate, yet another one was chosen? This correlates to what Julia Azari states considering the effects of weak partisanship led to "division and animosity." Additionally, Azari repeatedly notes, which is worthwhile to comprehend, "parties are weak while partisanship is strong." Yes, unity is a component that is preserved which is great however, the overall party remains weak. According to Azari, when weak partisanship is preserved "motives are constantly suspected" which led many individuals to support Trump. In other words, the concept of not choosing what the people desired led to suspiciousness that cost Democrats the 2016 election. All in all, the inability to gather and coordinate the individual's ideas was relevant within the 2016 Presidential Election.
Speaking of the Electoral College system, this is also a concept within the American government system that affects the American party systems. In other words, nominees of the Democratic and Republican sides have to take into account which states they choose to desire individuals' attention. The electoral college may be complex to comprehend, however in each state there are several representatives, based on the state's population, who eventually take part in the election to vote for a nominee. Taking a look at the 2016 election results, Clinton won by popular vote, however, lost by the electoral college system. Trump eventually prevailed. Personally, the Democratic party, at the time, chose to focus on states that came with fewer electoral votes. According to the election results, provided by the New York Times, it is evident to state that Trump won considering he met the needs of the people in states that came with high electoral votes. Yes, Clinton should have prevailed, however, the Democratic party failed to take into account an outdated system that existed and still exists today. The system may not be so great, but to prevail the election comes with taking into account the Electoral system. Thus, Azari's argument can be applied here considering it reveals the Democrats' inability to coordinate and prevail in the 2016 election. Additionally, weak parties lead to suspiciousness by the American people. All in all, the 2016 election proved that Azari's argument of weak partisanship was relevant.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
