G351

WASHINGTON -- As the Republicans and Democrats head into the most heated phase of the campaign season, there are widespread signs that the two major parties are less relevant to voters than ever.

The number of Americans who say they strongly identify with either party has been dropping, and by some measures, more people now say they are independent than call themselves either Democrats or Republicans.

Candidates increasingly depend on their own political networks and less on traditional party structures. Professional consultants have usurped many of the functions formerly carried out by the parties, from polling to message development. And the television ratings for this year's party conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles hit historic lows.

But there is at least one thing that the parties are doing better than ever: raising money.

"For all intents and purposes, the parties have become a vehicle to move money into elections," says Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO.

That role has been on display throughout this election year as the parties have regularly smashed fundraising records. The Republicans set the pace in April by raising $21.3 million in a single night at their annual Washington gala. That record lasted less than a month, eclipsed by the $26.5 million Democrats raised in one evening. And both conventions were awash in money, with fundraising events scheduled from breakfast until late at night.

'Capital-intensive'

In many ways, political scientists say, dollar power has replaced people power, yielding what University of Akron political scientist John Green calls "capital-intensive politics." Among the signs of party decline:

* Americans are less likely to affiliate strongly with either party. Some polls show the number of people who call themselves independents tops those who have even weak party attachments. In 24 states, voters do not even register by party, skipping what used to be the main means of party identification. An appeal to independents provided the fuel for Arizona Sen. John McCain's surprisingly strong bid for the GOP nomination in the spring primaries.

* Voters say they are more focused on personal qualities such as integrity and leadership than on specific issues when they make their ballot choices, making party labels less relevant. A USA TODAY/CNN/ Gallup Poll in January found 24% of voters said they were "certain" to or would "probably" vote Republican in the presidential election, 27% said the same of voting Democratic, and 47% said they "would consider the candidates equally without regard for party."

* Party mechanisms to deliver information and turn out votes have largely withered, supplanted by the news media and by television advertising, sophisticated direct-mail techniques and, increasingly, the Internet. "Parties used to be a neighbor who would knock on your door around election time, hand you a flier and talk to you," Rosenthal says. "Most places in the country, that doesn't exist anymore." Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., adds, "The bonding and the coalition are gone."

* Political consultants have taken over many of the functions parties used to perform, including providing strategic advice to candidates, advertising, polling and direct mail services. An American University poll last year found a majority of consultants said they believed the role of parties in electing candidates had declined, particularly at the state and local levels.

"The party system is in many ways weaker than it was 20 years ago, or 40 years ago," says Haley Barbour, a former national chairman of the Republican Party who is now a Washington lobbyist.

"We now have a system of candidates, by candidates and for candidates," says Martin Wattenberg, political scientist at the University of California-Irvine. He notes that in 1996, GOP nominee Bob Dole said he had not read the Republican platform and wouldn't be bound by its positions.

At the state level, many party organizations have dwindled to almost nothing, political professionals say. "For organizations that have existed since statehood, they sometimes act as though they were going out of business tomorrow," says Dave Hansen, political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Sometimes, all you want from them is their bulk-mail permit," which allows the party to send mail at preferred rates.

Impact of primaries

Another factor that has eroded parties, Barbour and other close observers say, is the development of the primary system for picking presidential candidates -- particularly open primaries that invite non-party members to participate in the selection. Such a system tends to reward candidates who take moderate positions and appeal to crossover voters; hard-core appeals to party faithful may backfire.

Primaries have not always been part of the American political scene. They grew out of the Progressive movement in the early part of this century as a way to take nominating decisions out of the hands of party bosses in smoke-filled rooms, and return them to the people. The number of primaries and their importance has grown over the past three decades.

The effect, says Roger Pilon, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, is to homogenize politics to the point where it's hard to distinguish between the parties. "They come across as being increasingly without principle," he says.

Despite their decline, parties still serve as an important shorthand for voters -- a brand name that generally says the GOP candidate is for lower taxes and less government, and the Democrat is for spending on social programs such as education and health care. And, at least at the national level, the parties serve in limited ways to recruit candidates and organize elections. They also serve as a rallying point for elected officials who battle over government policies.

But much of their remaining clout stems from their power as fundraisers, says Paul Beck, an Ohio State political scientist who wrote a leading textbook on party politics. "They have carved out for themselves a very important role, and I don't think it is a good role," he says. "They are the conduit for money to come into campaigns that exceeds what the candidates themselves can spend."

That provides a strong reason for candidates not to stray too far from their parties. Increasingly, campaigns are won not by money flowing directly to candidates, but by the flood of money flowing through outside channels -- of which the parties remain the largest. "You hate to say that money is such a determining factor, but it is," Hansen says.

As one indicator of change, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley points to his party's tradition, forged in the Depression and the activist government policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. "That really formed the strong Democratic Party system, locally and at the state and national levels, more than anything else," he says.

Now, that generation -- the generation of his father, Chicago Democratic boss Richard Daley -- has faded. "Voters now have a totally different outlook. They are saying, 'We elect you to get the job done,' " he says. "They don't want to know about the elephants and donkeys. They just want to know about the issues."