Assoc. Prof. Murat Somer, CASE 153

E-mail: musomer@ku.edu.tr

Fall 2015 Office Hours:

Tuesdays, 3:00-5:00pm

Chapter 9: Political Parties and Electoral Systems Learning Objectives

Describe how political parties differ from interest groups.

Differentiate among the types of party systems.

Characterize the alternative electoral arrangements used in democratic elections, and explain the relationship between electoral systems and party systems.

Describe the party systems and key electoral outcomes in the Topic in Countries and Spotlight on countries.

Political Parties and Party Systems

The Value of Political Parties

Party Identification

Party Systems

One-party systems

One-party dominant systems

Two-party systems

Two-and-a-half party systems

Multiparty systems

Political Parties and Party Systems

Political Parties

Are central link between the elites and masses

Seek political office, generally through participation

in elections

An organization, community of communities held

together typically by an overarching ideology

Different from interest groups: Political parties do not

concentrate on a single issue. They aggregate and

articulate interests

Political Parties and Party Systems The Value of Political Parties

1. They propose new policies and proclaim what

they will do in the office

Most parties are not programmatic, they focus on

leader’s personality

2. Parties simplify voters’ decision-making by

gathering politicians with similar views

3. Ease of accountability: If voters do not like what is going on in a country, they can punish the ruling party by voting to the alternative ones.

4. Central link between masses and elites, active participants in politics.

5. They are (supposed to be) much more institutionalized and enduring than social movements or interest groups (hence les subject to collective action problems)

Political Parties and Party Systems

Party Systems

One-party systems

One-party dominant systems

Two-party systems

Two-and-a-half party systems

Multiparty systems

Party Identification & Party Systems Comparativists study party identification: someone’s

attachment to a particular party

Strong party identification: Individuals vote for the same party election after election

Weak party identification: Swing voter, more personalized politics (candidate rather than party matters), more fluid system

Collection of the main parties in a country generates that country’s party system

One party system, one-party dominant system, two party system, two-and-a-half party system, multiparty system, no party system (ex: Iran)

One-Party Systems:

Single party coordinates government activities and

mobilizes mass support

During elections, the candidates within the single

party are elected.

Versions from the harshest to less harsh: totalitarian,

authoritarian and pragmatic (Sartori)

Example: Chinese Communist Party

(Moved from totatlitarian

to authoritarian)

One-Party Dominant Systems:

One party can dominate political systems without full

control over political system

Small parties are not banned, but receive little vote

This can raise questions about the democratic

nature of the system

This system can emerge after democratization or

independence of a country

Example: Mexico’s PRI, Polish

Communist Party, India’s Congress

Party, United Russia in recent years

Two-Party System Two major parties compete for control of government

Coalitions remain unnecessary

Small parties may exist, but not very successful

Example: US Democratic Party vs. GOP

Two-and-a-Half Party Systems

In addition to two party systems, there is a third party

Third party is influential, but has a much less vote in

the parliament than two large parties

Yet, the third party does not have the power to exist

in a coalition

Example: West Germany Two major parties had

80% of the votes. There was also a third party.

Moved to multiparty after unification

Multiparty Systems Large number of key parties (generally >3)

Large parties may exist, yet they are not as dominant

as in other party systems.

Parties can form coalitions (It is the norm)

Turkish National

Elections 1999

JUNE 7 2015 ELECTIONS

NOVEMBER 1 ELECTIONS

Pros and Cons of Large Number of Major Political Parties

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

More option for voters. Masses are

better represented. There is greater

likelihood that a voter will find a party

closest to his/her ideology.

Instability, because of fragile coalitions.

Disputes among ruling parties can get

harsher since each may consider itself as

the core of the coalition

Minority interests are better

represented. Smaller parties are not

forced to merge with larger ones.

In two-party systems, optimal choice to

appeal to center. In multi-party systems,

this does not exist. Parties can hold

more ideological agendas

Difficult to hold parties accountable:

Which party will be punished in a

poorly performing coalition? The

largest? Or all the coalition members?

Elections and Electoral Systems Election: A form of conventional mass participation

where population chooses among candidates or

political parties seeking office

Adam Przeworski: “Democracy is a system where

parties lose elections”

In democratic systems, a ruling party or president

can lose elections and be removed.

Elections and Electoral Systems

Types of Electoral Systems

Proportional representation (PR)

Closed vs. Open list proportional representation (open list PR)

First past the post (FPTP)

Single-member districts versus multi-member districts

Hybrid systems

Proportional Representation (PR)

In its pure form: The % of seats a party gets is equal to the % of votes it gets.

Example: Party X gets 25% of votes 25% of the seats reserved in the parliament On the party’s candidate list, the first 25 names get those seats (leader at the top of the list)

PR encourages small parties

Threshold: Rule that parties should get a certain percentage of votes to be in the parliament (ex: Turkey, 10%). Threshold encourages smaller parties to merge.

Elections and Electoral Systems

Advantages of PR Electoral Systems Minority interests are represented

Women are more likely to be elected to office

Emphasis on ideas over personalities

Disadvantages of PR Electoral Systems Too many small parties with disproportionate importance

PR facilitates extremist parties

First Past the Post (FPTP)

Voters do not vote for political parties; but vote for an individual political candidate in a relatively small district.

The candidate getting the plurality of the votes (ex: >50%) in that district gains the seat.

Only one person gets elected in a district Single-Member District (SMD)

Large number of candidates. Ex: In case of 5 candidates, one should get only above 20%. An extreme candidate with loyal followers can do that (But more than 70% would be unhappy)

Primary election: Voters elect which candidate will represent a party…

Think and Discuss

Does a PR system’s advantages, such as

doing a better job of representing the interests

of minority groups, outweigh its disadvantages,

such as potentially giving small parties the

ability to hijack the process of creating and

maintaining a ruling coalition? Why?

Topic in Countries The United Kingdom

Generally considered a two-and-a-half party system

Labour Party has controlled the government since 1997; the main opposition party is the Conservative Party (“Tories”); the third largest party is the Liberal Democratic Party

FPTP for House of Commons elections; tends to produce a majority party (which then controls the prime minister position)

IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Duverger’s Law and British Elections

Maurice Duverger believed that electoral systems

have two basic consequences: psychological and

mechanical

Believed FPTP systems encourage two-party

systems

Electoral results in the United Kingdom cast doubt

on Duverger’s law

Mixed systems Combine alternative vote (voters rank candidates)

with SMD: Preference system

Combine alternative vote (voters rank candidates)

with MMD: Single tranferable vote (STV)

Think and Discuss

Does the existence of regionally strong third

parties in the United Kingdom have

implications for the United States?

Could American third parties be successful if

they adopted a regional strategy rather than

trying to run as national parties?

Topic in Countries Germany

Multiparty system with two main parties: Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD)

Electoral system for the Bundestag combines PR and FPTP; PR seats distributed to create overall totals as if a pure PR system

In Theory and Practice Realignment Theory and Germany

Realignment Theory

Developed by scholars of American politics

Claims “critical elections” remake a country’s political

landscape

Germany and Realignment Theory

Some see Germany as experiencing a realignment

following 2005 elections

The 2005 Bundestag election produced no clear winner;

result was a CDU/SPD grand coalition

Aftermath included a new party, the Left Party

Topic in Countries

India

Multiparty system (six national parties); Congress Party

(INC) dominated for much of early independence period

and heads the ruling coalition at present; BJP is INC’s main

rival

SMD/FPTP system for Lok Sabha; majorities are hard to

come by, so coalitions between national and regional

parties are common

Topic in Countries

Mexico

The Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) dominated

for much of the 20th century; multiparty system

today with the National Action Party (PAN)

controlling the presidency but the PRI regaining

strength. Enrique Pena Nieto from PRI elected

president in 2012.

The Congress is elected through a combination of PR and

FPTP (presidential winner comes from a FPTP national

vote)

In Theory and Practice Party Organization Theory and Mexico Party Organization Theory

Associated with Joseph Schlesinger

Highlights the collective action problem of political parties;

why should individuals work for the party?

Parties are market-based. Trade goods for voter support. But

their goods are public goods.

Party “entrepreneurs” are willing to work hard because they

may gain personally through winning political office

Mexico’s Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD)

PRD founded by the son of a former PRI leader

Cardenas

He was a party entrepreneur, but formed the PRD as

much or more because of policy differences with the

PRI as he did because of a desire to hold office

Topic in Countries

Brazil

Weak parties

Very large number of parties gain seats in the

legislature; four are the most important, including

the Worker’s Party (PT), the party of President

Rousseff. Lower house chosen by PR (but

senators by FPTP and president by majority vote);

lower house uses “open list” PR

Topic in Countries

Nigeria

Emerging one-party dominant system (PDP

dominates the executive and legislature)

Senate and House of Representatives elections are

SMD/FPTP; PDP has dominated elections since democracy

was restored in 1999

Topic in Countries

Russia

Weak party system after collapse of USSR; turned

into one-party dominant system under Putin

Used to be a hybrid system; President Putin

pushed to change it to PR only; 2007 legislative

elections and 2008 presidential elections sparked

claims of irregularities

Topic in Countries China

Classic one-party system; CCP continues to

dominate Chinese politics

No real national elections; but, local elections have

some genuine competition; candidates in village

elections not always those preferred by the CCP

Some believe these local elections are an

experiment in democracy–like the special

economic zones that were an experiment with

capitalism before it spread across the country

Topic in Countries

Iran

A few main political parties after 1979 Revolution;

parties later replaced by loose electoral coalitions;

today, a “no party system”

Guardian Council can block candidates from running for

office; in Majles elections, some districts are single-member

while others are multi-member

Think and Discuss

The previous chapter discussed non-electoral

mechanisms for linking elites and masses.

This chapter focuses on political parties and

elections. Which of these sets of mechanisms

are more important for understanding mass

participation and how masses are linked to

elites? Why?

TIC Country Current Leader/Leaders Example of Decision-Making and its

Rationality

United Kingdom David Cameron (Prime Minister) Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands Island War

Germany Angela Merkel (Chancellor) Helmut Kohl and the German Currency Union

India Narendra Modi (Prime Minister) Manmohan Singh and the Indo-U.S. Nuclear

Agreement; ITAP feature on incrementalism

Mexico Enrique Pena Niteo (President) Ernesto Zedillo and liberalization; ITAP feature on

rational choice theory and NAFTA

Brazil Dilma Rousseff (President) Henrique Cordoso and the Plano Real

Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari (President) The Nigerian Civil War

Russia Vladimir Putin (President); Dmitry

Medvedev (Prime Minister)

The Coup against Mikhail Gorbachev

China Xi Jinping (President) Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward, and the

Cultural Revolution; ITAP feature on Deng Xiaoping,

Tiananmen Square, and elite learning

Iran Hassan Rouhani (President); Ali

Khamenei (Supreme Leader)

The choice to bar reformist candidates in the 2004

Majles election

France François Hollande (President) Sarkozy and the decision to ban burqas in public

Iraq Fuad Masum (President); Haider al-

Abadi (Prime Minister)

Nouri al-Maliki and the decision on whether to

maintain a U.S. troop presence in Iraq

South Africa Jacob Zuma (President) The 2011 Immigration Amendment Bill