1 / 27

EXPLAINING PARTY SYSTEMS ii

EXPLAINING PARTY SYSTEMS ii. Lijphart 62-77 and 143-170 Lipset and Rokkan, Duverger, Cox . Guiding Questions . Which factors do sociological approaches of party systems emphasize ? What is a cleavage? How are they translated into party systems? What are electoral systems?

zelda
Download Presentation

EXPLAINING PARTY SYSTEMS ii

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EXPLAINING PARTY SYSTEMS ii Lijphart 62-77 and 143-170 Lipset and Rokkan, Duverger, Cox

  2. Guiding Questions • Which factors do sociological approaches of party systems emphasize? • What is a cleavage? • How are they translated into party systems? • What are electoral systems? • What are SMD systems? PR systems? Differences? • How do electoral systems shape party systems? • What is Duverger’s Law?

  3. Sociological Accounts • Lipset and Rokkan 1967 • What shapes party systems?: • Social cleavages. • Although not all cleavages result in parties. • Cleavages: social divisions separating a given society. • Research question: • Why do we see two party systems in Anglo-American systems and multiparty systems in Europe? • Answer: • Resolution of historical conflicts (cleavage patterns) explain differences.

  4. Explaining European Party Systems: Critical Junctures and Critical Cleavages • Lipset and Rokkan 1967 • How do we get from cleavages, to parties, to party systems? • Exogenous shocks to the system (critical junctures) make certain cleavages salient. • Parties form in response • The timing of societal conflict coupled with which side “wins” shapes political parties. • These cleavage patterns in turn, shape party systems (i.e. which types of parties exist within a system). • Variation in cleavage patterns explains differences across systems. • Identifies four major cleavages which shape European party systems. • Shaped by national revolutions and industrialization. • First three cleavages shape the center and the right; the last cleavage shapes the left.

  5. Critical Junctures: National Revolutions CENTER-PERIPHERY STATE-CHURCH • Protestant Reformation • Control by the center vs. control by the localities. • Centralized state vs. ethnic, religious, linguistic communities in the periphery. • Shapes: conservatives, separatists, (liberals) • National Revolutions • Post 1789-French Revolution • State control of education vs. Church control. • Shapes: Christian Democrats

  6. Critical Junctures: Industrial Revolution LAND-INDUSTRY OWNER-WORKER • Industrial Revolution • 19th century. • Primary vs. secondary economy • Agriculture vs. manufacturing • Tariffs vs. free enterprise? • Shapes: agrarians, (liberals). • Russian Revolution • Post 1917 • Integrate workers vs. repressing labor. • Allow access to system. • Join an international movement? • Shapes: socialists and communists.

  7. OWNER LABOR DIVIDED SOCIALISTS OPPRESSED COMM-Y WORKER LABOR UNITED SOCIALISTS INTEGRATED COMM-N OWNER WORKER LABOR UNIFIED SOCIALISTS INTEGRATED COMM-N OWNER WORKER LABOR DIVIDED SOCIALISTS OPPRESSED COMM-Y OWNER WORKER LABOR UNIFIED SOCIALISTS INTEGRATED COMM-N

  8. Freezing of Party Systems • Lipset and Rokkan 1967 • Modern party systems of reflect the same patterns of cleavage structure observed in the 1920’s. • After universal suffrage, no further expansion of the electorate. • Cleavage patterns and their resulting party systems are “frozen” • Has fostered a great deal of debate within the literature.

  9. Evaluating Lipset and Rokkan STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • Shows the importance of societal context in party formation. • Explains why parties form. • Explains why we see certain types of parties in some systems but not in others. • Rise of post materialist parties (Greens) challenges the freezing hypothesis. • Suggest that institutions really do not matter. • But then why do politicians tweak them? • No predictive ability. • How do we know when a “critical juncture” will occur?

  10. Institutional Accounts and Electoral Systems • Institutional accounts of party systems frequently link the number of political parties to the electoral system • Electoral systems: • Translates vote shares into seat shares in the allocation of political offices. • Shapes party systems, partisan composition, representation, coalition formation, etc. • Two types of electoral systems: plurality (SMD/plurality/majoritarian) and proportional (PR). • Dis-proportionality is higher in SMD systems than in PR systems. • Differences exist within PR systems which also affect proportionality.

  11. SMD/Plurality/Majoritarian Systems • Referred to as single member district (SMD) or “first past the post” • A single candidate is elected in each electoral district (district magnitude =1). • Whoever receives the most votes, wins. • Generally manufactures a majority for the largest parties. • Gerrymandering can reduce electoral turnover. • Denies representation to smaller parties to provide stability in coalition creation. • Used in the United Kingdom for parliamentary elections. • Used with a runoff system in France.

  12. SMD/United Kingdom • Parties nominate candidates for each constituency. • 650 seats at the last election • Whoever gets the most votes in a district, wins. • Doesn’t matter if the candidate has a majority or not. • Typically manufactures a majority for either the Conservatives or Labour. • Although this didn’t happen in 2010 • UK uses PR for most other local and regional elections

  13. Proportional Representation • Various types of PR exist. • Closed/Open List • STV • Candidates are elected by party list in multi-member districts (district magnitude >1). • Parties receive a number of seats proportional to their percentage of the vote. • Various methods of allocation. • Electoral threshold determines which parties gain access to the legislature. • Allows for more proportionate outcomes, but makes coalition formation more difficult. • Most European systems use some form of PR.

  14. PR/Closed List: Belgium • Parties create electoral lists for each district. • Citizens vote party in the voting booth • Parties receive roughly the same percentage of seats as their vote share. • Order of list determines which individuals get elected. • Voters do not have any influence over the list order. • Threshold: 5 %

  15. PR/Open List: Netherlands • Parties create electoral lists for each district. • One large district of 150 seats. • Open list allows voters to express a preference for certain candidates over others on a party list. • Allows for “re-arranging” party representation. • All parties receiving more than .67% get representation.

  16. PR/STV: Ireland • Uses STV • 166 TD’s from 43 multimember constituencies. • Voters rank as many candidates as they wish. • 1 next to their favorite, 2 next to second choice, etc. • How do you determine who wins? • Candidates reaching quota are elected. • Quota: minimum number of votes to be elected.

  17. PR/STV: Ireland • Candidates reaching quota on the first count are automatically elected. • Any extra votes for elected candidates are then shifted to second preferences. • Candidates in last place are eliminated. • Votes are redistributed to second preferences. • Counting continues until all seats are allocated.

  18. What Could Have Been: UK Election 2010 ELECTION RESULTS WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN… • CONSERVATIVES: 306 (+97) • LABOUR: 258 (-91) • LIBERAL DEMS 57 (-5) • SNP 6 (NC) • PC 3 (+1) • OTHERS 19 (-2) • DUP 8 (-1) • SF 5 (NC) • SDLP 3 (NC) • ALLIANCE 1 (+1) • OTHERS 1 (+1) • Alternative Vote (AV): • Maintains ties to constituency-1 MP per district • Voters rank the candidates • Conservatives: 281 • Labour: 262 • Liberal Democrats: 79 • Others: 28 • Single Transferable Vote (STV): • Voters rank candidates-district magnitude higher than1 • Conservatives: 246 • Labour: 207 • Liberal Democrats: 162 • Others: 35

  19. Mixed Systems: Germany • Mixed system • 299 seats elected by SMD and 299 seats elected by PR. • Voters cast two ballots: • 1) one for a candidate within their electoral district (SMD) • SMD seats attempt to create a personal mandate. • 2) one for a political party at the land level (PR). • PR seats attempt to ensure proportionality.

  20. Mixed Systems: Germany • Parties must receive 5% of the national vote or win 3 constituencies to get their PR seats. • High threshold keeps far right parties out of office. • PR list vote attempts to compensate parties • 2009: Gr/B90 • Won one SMD seat (Berlin) • Received 10.7% of the national vote • Allocated 67 PR seats and 1 SMD seat. • Parties winning more seats at the SMD level than they are allotted by the PR level can keep them (excess mandates) • 2009: CDU/CSU • SMD totals in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg exceeded what they would have been entitled to under PR. • 24 overhang seats were allocated to reflect this.

  21. Institutional Accounts • Institutional discussions of party systems typically focus on electoral institutions. • Although other institutional factors may also be relevant towards explaining the number of political parties. • Duverger 1954 • Two party systems are preferable to multiparty systems. • Two party systems are “natural” as a “duality of tendencies” exist on any issue. • Center is an artificial construct which does not truly exist. • Always split by moderates of the left and right (i.e. superimposed dualisms). • Two party systems reflect natural dualism of political issues. • Preferable to multipartism

  22. Dualisms • Duverger 1954 • Not all “dualisms” are created equal. • Certain dualisms can threaten democracy. • Technical dualism: • Differences between parties revolve around issues. • Legitimacy of system and institutions accepted by both parties. • Metaphysical dualism: • Differences between parties revolve around fundamentals of the regime (i.e. institutions, etc). • Threatens stability.

  23. Electoral Institutions and Party Systems • Duverger 1954 • Duvergers' Law: “simple majority single ballot systems favours the two-party system” • Mechanical effects. • Psychological effects. • FPTP with a runoff does not reduce the number of parties. • Parties have incentives to compete in the first round and then coordinate in the second round. • Multiparty systems promoted by proportional representation. • PR systems lack the mechanical and psychological effects to reduce the number of parties. • All parties possess internal divisions of opinion (factions). • In systems with permissive electoral laws factionalization can result in the creation of center parties.

  24. Overlapping Dualisms and Multipartyism • Multiparty systems can arise from: • 1) party factions • 2) overlapping dualisms. • Overlapping dualisms exist where several issues are salient, but duality of opinions on these issues do not overlap. • Example: French Fourth Republic • Three Dualisms • 1) Clerical-Anticlerical • 2) East-West • 3) Freedom-Planning

  25. Evaluating Duverger STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • FPTP does reduce the number of parties. • Although concentrated support can make a third party viable. • Runoff systems using FPTP result in multiparty systems. • Admits that while two party systems are “natural” electoral manipulation to reduce the number of parties may not always be wise. • Example: Italian First Republic., Israel. • Dualist” countries use FPTP • Suggests that the selection of certain institutions may be based on societal attributes. • Supportive of sociological explanations. • The types of parties contesting elections “matter” • Supportive of competition models.

  26. Conclusions: Evaluating Sociological and Institutional Explanations • Both overlook the ability of party leaders to shape cleavage patterns. • Party leaders can exploit cleavages for electoral success. • Cox 1997 • Both cleavages and institutions matter • “Symbiotic relationship” exists between the two. • Electoral system provides an upper limit (or upper bound) on the number of political parties within a system. • Systems without multiple cleavages would not have multiple parties.

  27. Next Unit • Theme: Party System Change: Realignment and Dealignment • Lijphart 78-89, Inglehart and Flanagan, Flanagan and Dalton

More Related