political parties & party systems - harvard university challenges spring2010/dpi413... · types...
TRANSCRIPT
Readings:Readings:
LeDuc et al ch by– Scarrow, Dalton, and Van BiezenScarrow, Dalton, and Van Biezen
Haerpfer et al Ch 14 (Morlino)– Ch 14 (Morlino)
StructureStructure
I. The function of parties for democracy II Electoral systems and party systemsII. Electoral systems and party systemsIII. Parties in the mass publicIV P ti i tiIV. Parties as organizationsV. Parties in government VI. Conclusions:
Strength of parties in government and yet weak g g yorganizations and partisan dealignment among citizens
I: Functions of partiesI: Functions of partiesV.O. Key (1964)
– Parties-in-the-electorate– Simplifying electoral choices for voters– Educating citizensg– Generating symbolic loyalties– Mobilizing citizens to participate
– Parties-as-organizations– Recruiting leaders for elected/appointed office
T i i lit– Training elites– Articulating interests– Aggregating interests
– Parties-in-governmentCreating government majorities– Creating government majorities
– Organizing government and the legislature– Implementing policy objectives– Organizing dissent– Ensuring responsibility for government actions– Fostering stability
Types of party systemsTypes of party systems1. Single-party systems
– Legal or constitutional bans on opposition parties– E.g. Communist party in USSR, China, Cuba
2. Predominant party systems– One large party for sustained period in government multiple fragmented opposition partiesOne large party for sustained period in government, multiple fragmented opposition parties– E.g. Congress party of India, 1947-1975, ANC S.Africa, Mexico until 2000, Swedish Social Democrats
1945-1998, Japan 1955-1993
3. Two-party system– Periodic alternation in government and opposition, other minor parties exist in the electorate
and legislature– Eg Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Spain, US
4 Moderate multi party system4. Moderate multi-party system– Several (4/5) parties, none approaching 50% of votes/seats, coalition governments– Eg Denmark, Germany
5 Fragmented multiparty system5. Fragmented multiparty system– Multiple parties (6+) in the legislature– E.g. Israel, Netherlands, Belgium
Why? yRole of electoral rules on party systems
Maurice Duverger (1954)Mechanical effects of electoral systemsMechanical effects of electoral systems– Due to constitutional provisions, legal statutes or
administrative regulations– Ballot access, campaign access to media and funds, vote
thresholds (legal and effective)Psychological effects of electoral systemsPsychological effects of electoral systems– The strategic incentives facing candidates, parties and voters
under electoral rulesunder electoral rules
Sequential processSequential processFigure 4.1: The sequential model of the main stages to elected office
Mechanical effects: due to constitutional requirements, legal statutes, or administrative procedures.
Nomination Campaigning
Ballot access:
The legal regulations for party registration and for parties to
nominate candidates on the official ballot paper.
Campaigning
Media and funding access:
The legal regulations governing access to free
campaign media and public funds or subsidies for parties
Election
The effective vote threshold:
The minimum share of the vote required for a party to win a
seat
Legislative office
Strategic contests: Tactical calculations by parties whether to
contest electoral districts.
Strategic campaign communications: Tactical
calculations by parties about how to target their campaign
communications
Strategic voting: Tactical calculations by electors
whether to vote for minor parties or their second-
preference choice
Psychological effects: due to the strategic incentives facing parties and citizens under electoral rules.
Feedback loop
Source: Pippa Norris 2005 Radical Right Cambridge University Press.
Types of electoral systemsTypes of electoral systemsNation StatesNation States
191
Majoritarian93
Combined27
PR64
No direct elections7
Majority27
Plurality66
Independent14
Dependent13
STV2
Party List62
AV2
2nd Ballot25
FPTP54
Bloc Vote10
STNV2
Closed Open
www.pippanorris.comAdversarial Consensual
Mechanical effects worldwideMechanical effects worldwideMean N of parl parties (1 seat)
Mean N of relevant parl parties (3%+
% Vote for party 1st
% Seats for party 1st
Number of countriesparties (1 seat) parl parties (3%+
seats)1st party 1st countries
All Majoritarian 5.22 3.33 54.5 56.8 83
Alternative Vote 9.00 3.00 40.3 45.3 1
Block vote 5.60 4.57 52.9 56.2 10
2nd Ballot 6.00 3.20 54.8 57.8 23
FPTP 4.78 3.09 55.1 57.8 49
All C bi d 8 85 4 52 46 8 49 5 26All Combined 8.85 4.52 46.8 49.5 26
Independent 8.89 3.94 51.7 53.9 19
Dependent 8.71 6.17 33.9 36.9 7
ALL Proportional 9.52 4.74 45.3 43.8 61
STV 5.00 2.50 45.3 50.1 2
Party List 9.68 4.82 44.5 43.6 59
www.pippanorris.com
TOTAL 7.05 4.12 48.7 50.0 143
ENPP by Electoral SystemENPP by Electoral SystemLaakso and Taagepera 1979
Effective Number of Parliamentary PartiesEffective Number of Parliamentary Parties
2.02 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MAJORITARIAN USA
UK 2.12.6
3.0
2.42.5
2.92 9
UKAustralia
CanadaCOMBINED
Korea, Republic ofTaiwanMexico
Thailand 2.92.9
3.33.5
3.85.4
6.0
ThailandJapan
GermanyHungary
New ZealandRussia
UkrainePROPORTIONAL
2.73.0
3.44.2
4.34.4
4 8
PROPORTIONALSpain
PolandRomania
Czech RepublicSwedenNorway
N th l d
www.pippanorris.com
4.84.9
5.15.55.6
9.1
NetherlandsDenmark
SwitzerlandSlovenia
IsraelBelgium
ProportionalityProportionalityRegressions
Majoritarian formula80
Proportional formula10080
60
40SNTV
100
80
60
40
% v
ote
20
0
-20
Two round
AV
Block Vote
FPTP
Rsq = 0.8128
% v
ote
40
20
0
20
STV
List PR
R 0 9532
%Seat
120100806040200-20
% q
Combined formula100
80
%Seat
100806040200-20
% -20 Rsq = 0.9532
60
40
20MMP
www.pippanorris.com%Seat
100806040200-20
% v
ote 0
-20
Parallel
Rsq = 0.9291
ProportionalityProportionalityStandardized Loosemore-Hanby Index
Proportionalityp y
8083
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
MAJORITARIAN UK
Canada 8384
94
84868686
CanadaAustralia
USACOMBINED
Korea, Republic ofJapan
UkraineHungary
8889
9294
9596
g yThailand
RussiaMexico
GermanyTaiwan
New ZealandPROPORTIONAL
8282
8489
9393
95
PolandRomaniaSlovenia
Czech RepublicSpain
SwitzerlandNetherlands
www.pippanorris.com
959696
9798
NorwayBelgium
IsraelSweden
DenmarkPeru
II Parties in the mass publicII. Parties in the mass public
Function of partisan identification– Cognitive short-cut or cue for evaluating new issues, policies,
candidates and leaderscandidates, and leadersAffective orientation measured by direction and strengthst e gt– “People associate themselves psychologically with one or
other of the parties, and this identification has predictable relationships with their perceptions evaluations and actions ”relationships with their perceptions, evaluations and actions.
– Campbell et al 1954.
Classical literatureClassical literature
First campaign surveys by the Columbia school in Erie county in 1940s –Paul Lazarsfeld et al.
1948 first U.S. national election surveys (NES) ; The Michigan school
Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes The American Voter (1960)Ca pbe , Co e se, e a d Sto es e e ca ote ( 960)
Philip Converse 1964 ‘The nature of beliefs systems’.
The American voterThe American voter
“The electorate is almost completely unable to judge the rationality of government actions; j g y g ;knowing little of the particular politics and what has led to them, the mass electorate is not able ,to appraise its goals or the appropriateness of the means chosen to secure these goals.” gCampbell et al. p543.
Funnel of causalityFunnel of causalityAge
RaceSex Events
Age
Vote choice
Party id.SES
Race
Candidate i
Issue preferences
Education, income
Region
images
Media
Ref: Campbell et al The American Voter 1954
Evidence?Evidence?
[Party identification] “Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” (A3004)[Direction] If ‘yes’, “Which party is that?” [A3005_1][Strength] “Do you feel very close to this [party/party block], somewhat close, or not very close?” (A3012)
The America Voter: ConclusionsThe America Voter: Conclusions
Low levels of cognitive knowledge and civic engagement in American electorateg g– Most Americans unable to name their elected
member of Congressg– Most unfamiliar with government institutions– Most do not understand the policy processp y p– Irrational voter
Yet Americans cast a ballot due to the cognitive Yet Americans cast a ballot due to the cognitive shortcut of affective party identification
Does party id anchor voters p yelsewhere?
Britain – Butler and Stokes –(1972) – Many ‘non-attitudes’ with unstable opinions over time and little
consistency among issuesconsistency among issuesFrance – Converse and Dupeaux (1963)– less interest than the US
Al d d V b (1963)Almond and Verba (1963)–– 5 nation study - few discussed politics frequently or read about
governmentStouffer (1955)– Support for democracy as an ideal but not in practice eg social
tolerance, freedom,
DealignmentDealignment
Widespread evidence of weakening partisan identification since 1950s & 1960s.Wh ?Why?Russ Dalton: Due to societal modernization
Improved educational levels– Improved educational levels– Growth of mass media– Fragmentation of interest groupsg g p– Long-term and steady process– Lead to new forms of democratic politics such as expansion
of direct democracy expanding use of the courts greater of direct democracy, expanding use of the courts, greater public consultation
Alternative explanationsAlternative explanations
Or due to ‘top down’ shifts in party strategies– Schmidt and Holmberg - Citizens & the StateSchmidt and Holmberg Citizens & the State– Cross-national variations in dealignment– ‘Catch-all’ (Kirchheimer) or ‘bridging’ partiesCatch all (Kirchheimer) or bridging parties
• Party strategies generate weaker party links to capture broad coalition of floating voters
• Esp. true in majoritarian electoral systems
TrendsTrends
Russell Dalton and Marty WattenbergParties without partisans (OUP 2000)Regress year on party id in 19 OECD nations– Partisan attachment weakened in 17
Si f ll ( 10 l l) i 13 – Sig. fall (.10 level) in 13 – Weaker by age and education (political sophistication)– Not concentrated among those dissatisfied with government g g
performance
ConsequencesConsequences
1. Greater electoral volatility2 Growth in party fragmentation (ENPP)2. Growth in party fragmentation (ENPP)3. Growth in split-ticket voting4 L t ti i i ti d i i4. Later timing in voting decisions5. Move towards candidate-centered politics
(leader v. party)6. Decline in party-based campaign participationp y p g p p
% with a party ID by nation6 3
8 1I s r a e l
A u s t r a l i a
% with a party ID by nation
4 95 15 1
5 25 35 4
5 96 3
C a n a d aI c e l a n d
N e w Z e a l a n dN o r w a yR u s s i a
U n i t e d S t a t e sU k r a i n e
I s r a e l
4 44 5
4 64 74 7
4 84 84 9
R o m a n i aC z e c h R e p
B r i t a i nS w e d e n
P o r t u g a lM e x i c oP o l a n d
D e n m a r k
3 23 5
3 63 73 7
4 24 3
4 4
T a i w a nH u n g a r y
G e r m a n yS w i t z e r l a n d
J a p a nS p a i n
B e l g i u mR o m a n i a
81 4
2 02 0
2 22 3
2 83 1
B e l a r sT h a i l a n d
C h i l eS l o v e n i a
P e r uK o r e a R e p
N e t h e r l a n d sL i t h u a n i a
8
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0
B e l a r u s
Note: Q: “Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” (%‘Yes’).Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, Module 1 1996-2002.
% Party id by type of society% Party id by type of society% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
4 1
4 7
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0
A l l
O ld e r d e m o c r a c y3 4
4 63 7
N e w e r d e m o c r a c y
P o s t i n d u s t r i a l
I n d u s t r i a l
5 7
4 2
4 14 6
C a n d i d a t e - b a l lo tP r e f e r e n c e b a l lo t
D u a l - b a l lo t
P a r t y b a l lo t
3 3
3 7
4 3
5 0
5 0
E x e c u t i v e o n lyL e g i s la t i v e a n d e x e c u t i v e
L e g i s la t i v e o n ly
N o r t h A m e r i c aS c a n d i n a v i a 5 0
4 04 0
4 0
2 2
S c a n d i n a v i a
W e s t e r n E u r o p e
C . & E . E u r o p e
A s i a - P a c i f i c
S o u t h A m e r i c a
% Party id by type of party% Party id by type of party% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o np y
4 1
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0
A L L
6 7
3 7
5 3
5 3
C o m m u n i s t
E c o l o g y
S o c i a l i s t
S o c i a l D e m o c r a t
5 8
4 1
4 9
5 1
L e f t L i b e r a l
L i b e r a l
R i g h t l i b e r a l
C o n s e r v a t i v e
6 2
3 3
4 4
N a t i o n a l i s t
Y o u n g e r p a r t y
O l d e r p a r t y
4 2
4 4
4 3
T w o p a r t y
M o d e r a t e m u l t i p a r t y
F r a g m e n t e d m u l t i p a r t y
Characteristics of partisansCharacteristics of partisans0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0
4 1
4 33 9
4 84 7
4 33 9
A L L
M e nW o m e n
S ix t i e s o r o l d e rF i f t i e s
F o r t i e sT h i r t i e s
3 3
4 64 0
4 23 7
5 45 2
4 0
T w e n t i e s
U n i v e r s i t yT e c h n i c a l
S e c o n d a r yP r im a r y
H ig h e s t k n o w le d g eH ig hL o w 4 0
3 2
4 84 2
4 13 93 9
5 4
L o wL o w e s t k n o w le d g e
In c o m e H ig h e s tH ig h
M o d e r a t eL o w
In c o m e L o w e s t
M a n a g e r i a l &5 0
4 44 4
4 2
5 34 6
4 13 8
4 3
L o w e r P r o f e s s io n sS k i l l e d w h i t e c o l l a r
S k i l l e d m a n u a lM a n u a l
M o s t r e l i g i o u s5432 4 3
4 3
4 83 9
4 83 6
2L e a s t r e l i g i o u s
U n io n m e m b e rN o t u n io n m e m b e r
L in g u i s t i c m a jo r i t yL in g u i s t i c m in o r i t y
Attitudes of partisansAttitudes of partisans% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
4 1
4 72 0
4 4
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0
A L L
V o t e dD i d n o t v o t e
H i g h e f f i c a c y3 3
4 64 0
4 53 6
4 9
g yL o w e f f i c a c y
H i g h d e m o c r a t i c s a t i s .L o w d e m o c r a t i c s a t i s .
L a s t e l e c t i o n f a i rL a s t e l e c t i o n n o t f a i r
P a r t i e s c a r e 5 0
4 53 7
2 9
4 84 2
3 53 1
234
P a r t i e s d o n ’ t c a r e
P a r t i e s a r e n e c e s s a r y234
2 8
6 25 7
5 55 1
4 23 5
4 0
P a r t i e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r y
0 M o s t L e f t123456
4 95 7
6 35 5
789
1 0 M o s t R i g h t
III Parties as organizationsIII. Parties as organizations
Maurice Duverger – Ideal types– Mass-branch eg German SDP, Norwegian Labour
C d– Caucus-cadre– Militia– Is mass-branch still functional today?Is mass branch still functional today?– Mair: Decline in mass membership
Katz and Mair – The cartel party – fall in mass membership but increased
public subsidies for party finance and staffing– Do members matter?– Do members matter?
Party MembershipParty MembershipMair and Biezen: Official membership figures
Country Year Total Party
Membership
Total Party Membership as
Percentage of Electorate (M/E) Membership Percentage of Electorate (M/E)
Austria 1999 1,031,052 17.66
Finland 1998 400,615 9.65
Norway 1997 242,022 7.31
Greece 1998 600,000 6.77
Belgium 1999 480,804 6.55
Switzerland 1997 293,000 6.38
Sweden 1998 365,588 5.54
Denmark 1998 205,382 5.14
Slovakia 2000 165,277 4.11
Italy 1998 1,974,040 4.05 y
Portugal 2000 346,504 3.99
Czech Republic 1999 319,800 3.94
Spain 2000 1,131,250 3.42
Ireland 1998 86,000 3.14 Ireland 1998 86,000 3.14
Germany 1999 1,780,173 2.93
Netherlands 2000 294,469 2.51
Hungary 1999 173,600 2.15
Trends in older democraciesOfficial membership figures: Mair & Biezen
Change in Change in
Numbers as Country Period Change in
M/E Ratio
Change in Numbers of
Members
Numbers as Percentage of
Original Membership*
France 1978-1999 - 3.48 - 1,122,128 - 64.59 a ce 9 8 999 3. 8 , , 8 6 .59
Italy 1980-1998 - 5.61 - 2,091,887 - 51.54
United Kingdom 1980-1998 - 2.20 - 853,156 - 50.39
Norway 1980-1997 - 8.04 - 218,891 - 47.49
Czech Republic 1993-1999 - 3.10 - 225,200 - 41.32 p ,
Finland 1980-1998 - 6.09 - 206,646 - 34.03
Netherlands 1980-2000 - 1.78 - 136,459 - 31.67
Austria 1980-1999 - 10.82 - 446,209 - 30.21
Switzerland 1977-1997 - 4.28 - 118,800 - 28.85
Sweden 1980-1998 - 2.87 - 142,533 - 28.05
Denmark 1980-1998 - 2.16 - 70,385 - 25.52
Ireland 1980-1998 - 1.86 - 27,856 - 24.47
Belgium 1980-1999 - 2.42 - 136,382 - 22.10
Germany 1980-1999 - 1.59 - 174,967 - 8.95
Hungary 1990-1999 + 0.04 + 8,300 + 5.02
Portugal 1980-2000 - 0.29 + 50,381 + 17.01
Slovakia 1994-2000 + 0.82 + 37,777 + 29.63
Trends in Newer DemocraciesTrends in Newer DemocraciesWVS 1990-2001 –Reported membership
South Africa 7.0 44.1 +D i i R 33 4Dominican Rep 33.4Uruguay 16.2Chile 5.1 15.6 +Brazil 4.9 14.3 +Romania 2.5 11.9 +South Korea 2.6 6.5 11.8 +Argentina 7.9 2.0 10.1 +Philippines 7.8Czech Rep 4.2 6.7 +Slovakia 6.7Bulgaria 13.0 5.7 -Slovenia 3.9 4.7 +E. Germany 11.1 4.1 -El Salvador 3.7Hungary 2.6 3.4 +Latvia 21 0 3 3 -Latvia 21.0 3.3Lithuania 7.6 3.2 -Estonia 8.7 2.0 -Poland 1.1
IV: Party in governmentIV: Party-in-government
Persistence (or even strengthening) of party cohesion in legislative votingg gOnly parties can organize parliaments and government control bureaucracy and administer government, control bureaucracy and administer public policiesParties in government persist unchanged but Parties-in-government persist unchanged but with weaker links to members and voters