Over the last few chapters, it was argued that parties benefit from acting as unified teams in government because it reduces the uncertainty of voters about the characteristics of party members. Consequently, it is rational for citizens to cast votes based on candidates' party affiliations because they know that if the party fails to corral its members in the future, then it jeopardizes its valuable reputation in the same way that a franchiser stakes its brand name on the performance of its local franchisees. This provides a rationale for the empirical fact that voters tend to rely primarily on politicians' party affiliations in Congressional elections rather than other decision-making cues (including candidates' own policy positions) and explains why it is rational for the public to hold the national parties collectively responsible for their actions in government – a notion essential to the surety model of party government.

This account of the importance of partisan cues is not easily reconciled with the notion that American elections are candidate-centered (Agranoff 1976; Wattenberg 1982, 1994). Seminal studies of Congressional elections strongly suggest that politicians endeavor to develop and campaign on the basis of private brand names established via their legislative record that have particular appeal in their home districts and that differentiate them from other members of their party (Fenno 1978; Mayhew 1974a).