In 1990 a new political theory began being argued. It was based upon the idea that elections had become "supplanted by other forms of political conflict between contending interests". The 2000 election was the first true fit to this new theory. The post-election, the 5 week period between the times the voters went to the polls and when the Supreme Court ultimately decided the winner. It can be argued that the election was actually less important and represented less than the court case which directly followed the election.
             Ginsburg and Shefter began their argument by recognizing that American politics had undergone another transformation in the historical line of its' existence. They suggested that competitors in the political process no longer sought victory by solely out-mobilizing their opponents in the political arena. Rather, the participants sought to "rely on institutional weapons of political struggle as legislative investigations, media revelations, and judicial proceedings to weaken their political rivals and gain power for themselves".
             They blame this transition on the electoral process and not the combatants. From the 1930's to the 1060's, political power was dependant on winning elections. The powers of the past, such as the Democratic majority enjoyed by Andrew Jackson, the post-Civil War Republican majority, and the Democratic coalition of Roosevelt, owed its authority and power to the voters alone. These coalitions were controlled by self-interested parties which carried across racial boundaries. Once the issues of race and civil rights came to the forefront of American politics in the 1960's, these alliances soon feel apart.
             There were two parties of equal ability that emerged from the break-up of Roosevelts' New Deal coalition. Democrats represented the ideas of organized labor, racial minorities, government employees, and middle class liberals. The...