Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Political paradoxes may 15 2008 l.jpg
Download
1 / 35

  • 367 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: Travel / Places

Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008. Today:. Evaluations Elections in Africa note Brief summary for last time Freakonomics chapter Democracy: Romania vs. Russia Discussion: polisci discipline. PR formulas. Two types of proportional electoral formulas:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Political paradoxes may 15 2008 l.jpg

Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008


Today l.jpg

Today:

  • Evaluations

  • Elections in Africa note

  • Brief summary for last time

  • Freakonomics chapter

  • Democracy: Romania vs. Russia

  • Discussion: polisci discipline


Pr formulas l.jpg

PR formulas

  • Two types of proportional electoral formulas:

  • Largest remainders (e.g., Hamilton) – non-monotonic

  • Highest averages (e.g., Jefferson; also known as d’Hondt in Europe) - monotonic


Pr in romania l.jpg

PR in Romania

  • In Romania, until 2004, PR for the Senate & Chamber of Deputies was a two-step process (see electoral law, Article 91, paragraphs 2-4/pp. 55-56, available at http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2004/400/20/0/leg_pl420_04.pdf )


Giurgiu paradox l.jpg

“Giurgiu Paradox”

  • The 1996 results for the Senate (Giurgiu):

    PDSR 46,810

    CDR 39,672 (35.37%)

    USD (PD + PSD) 16,680

    PRM 6,833

    PUNR 1,894

    UDMR 269 (0.23%)

    (see http://www.kappa.ro/guv/bec/j-sen.html)


Who got the two senate seats l.jpg

Who got the two Senate seats?

  • Giurgiu has two Senate seats

  • One Senate seat went to PDSR (the party received the largest number of votes in Giurgiu)

  • The second Senate seat went to UDMR (269 votes, or about 147 times less than the Democratic Convention); see

  • http://www.kappa.ro/guv/bec/p-sen.html


Alabama paradox l.jpg

Alabama Paradox:

  • What is AP? When it did occur? Why?

  • What is monotonicity?

  • Two types of formulas (monotonic vs. non-monotonic)

  • Alabama Paradox, population paradox, new states paradox

  • Fix(es) to AP? How to prevent it?


Electoral engineering in chile l.jpg

Electoral Engineering in Chile

  • What were the bad news for the incumbents?

  • What were the good news?

  • What is the best electoral system in those circumstances? Why?

  • Did gerrymandering play a role in Chile?

  • Did the system work as intended?

  • Is it fair to call Chile a “limited democracy”?


Gerrymandering l.jpg

Gerrymandering

  • What is gerrymandering? Where does the name come from?

  • What types of electoral systems are most conducive to gerrymandering?

  • Purpose? (three kinds)

  • Techniques? (types)


Simple example l.jpg

Simple example

  • A state (region, district, county, judet…) is entitled to three seats

  • Two parties (Dems & Reps)

  • We have nine neighborhoods, four with Democratic majorities, five with Republican majorities:


Geographic distribution l.jpg

Geographic distribution:


Column constituencies 1d 2r l.jpg

Column constituencies: 1D, 2R


Row constituencies 2d 1r l.jpg

Row constituencies: 2D, 1R


Limited vote in britain l.jpg

Limited Vote in Britain

  • Why was the Limited Vote introduced?

  • What were the two main goals of electoral reform?

  • Describe how Limited Vote works

  • What were the actual results?

  • Were the initial goals too optimistic? Why (or why not)?


Did limited vote achieve its goals l.jpg

Did Limited Vote achieve its goals?

(i) Lessening the power of parties?

  • Not really; on the contrary, it led to the development of the Birmingham caucus

    (ii) Protecting minorities?

  • Did not happen in Birmingham; in Leeds, it led to a “tyranny of minority” instead

  • Aren’t the two goals mutually exclusive?


Where have all the criminals gone l.jpg

Where Have All the Criminals Gone?

  • Crime went up in the US for decades

  • Then it started to decline

  • Why?

     Not the strong economy

     Not the increased use of capital punishment:

    → “life on death row safer than on the streets”

    → not much effect, even if there is one (!?)

     Notinnovative policing


Slide18 l.jpg

 Nottougher gun laws

  • Not the aging of the population

    Did have some effect:

  • Increased reliance on prisons

  • Increased number of police

  • Changes in crack and other drug markets

    However, this is not the whole story

    Also Roe vs. Wade: changes in abortion policies/legislation

    How does Levitt go about proving this claim?


X democracy l.jpg

“X” → Democracy

  • (Economic) development

  • Predominant religion

  • Natural resources

  • Political culture

  • Mode of transition

  • Institutional design


Note democracy l.jpg

Note: “democracy”

  • Respondents asked to rate the importance of democracy for them, on a scale from 1 (very important) to 10 (not important at all).

  • Thus, the lower the score, the more important democracy is for the respondent


Note communism l.jpg

Note: “Communism”

  • Respondents were asked their opinions about Communism (evaluate the regime). Available choices:

    (1)  Communism is a bad idea

    (2)  Communism was a good idea, but it was badly implemented (in Ro.)

    (3)  Communism is good, and it was implemented well (in Ro.)


Wealth communism l.jpg

Wealth & Communism:


Education democracy l.jpg

Education → Democracy


Education communism l.jpg

Education & Communism


Soros barometer november 2007 l.jpg

Soros Barometer, November 2007

  • Questions:

  • Death penalty support (% support - % oppose)

  • Better to have two parties or more (% agree - % wanting one party or no parties)

  • Communism: % who thinks Communism was a bad political system


Policy positions of presidential electorates l.jpg

Policy positions of presidential electorates


Policy positions of party electorates l.jpg

Policy positions of party electorates


Png vs becali electorates l.jpg

PNG vs. Becali electorates


Development democracy in ro l.jpg

“Development” & democracy in Ro

  • Positive relation between wealth and education, on the one hand, and support for democracy, on the other

  • Wealth → democracy

  • Education → democracy


Modernization theory l.jpg

Modernization theory

Economic development

Social development

Values (pro-democratic)

Democracy


Religion democracy l.jpg

Religion & democracy

  • Protestantism → democracy

  • Islam → authoritarianism

  • Orthodoxy?

    Natural resources:

  • The “resource curse”


Slide33 l.jpg

  • Ethnic diversity:

    Inimical to democracy (?)

  • Mode of transition:

    Violent vs. negotiated

  • Romania vs. Russia?


Romania vs russia l.jpg

Romania vs. Russia

  • Development

  • Ethnic divisions

  • Religion

  • Communist legacy

  • Political culture

  • Mode of transition


  • Login