INTL 3300 Final Exam

yea ok lol; currently working on class 20 slides

political party

a group of people that includes those who hold office and those who help get and keep them there

common objective of political parties

gain power by holding public office (office seeking) and to advance their policy goals once in office (policy seeking)

Demand-side, bottom-up explanation (where do parties come from)

there are natural cleavages in society; individuals on different sides of these cleavages form parties

Supply-side, top-down explanation (where do parties come from)

entrepreneurial actors create parties to represent previously unrepresented interests, often by highlighting or exploiting societal cleavages

The salience of each cleavage…

varies across time and countries.

• The cleavages can overlap.

Cleavage: Urban-Rural

City dwellers vs. country dwellers.

• The main point of conflict was the price of food.

• City dwellers consumed it; country dwellers produced it.

• Thus, city dwellers wanted cheaper food, while country dwellers wanted more expensive food.

Values also played a role: rural individuals tended to value tradition, while urbanites favored change

Example of parties formed around Urban-Rural Cleavage

Whigs vs. Tories in 17th Century U.K.

Cleavage: Religious

Different religions against one another.

The main point of conflict is religious belief and custom:

• Protestant-Catholic cleavages were common in Europe.

• The Muslim-Hindu cleavage remains salient in India.

• The Sunni-Shiite cleavage remains salient in much of the Muslim world

Examples of parties formed around Religious Cleavage 

BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in India; CSU (Christian Social Union of Bavaria) in Germany

Cleavage: Secular-Clerical

Church vs. State

• The main point of conflict centers upon whether society should be run by a religious institution or the secular state.

• This cleavage in part formed the basis of the French Revolution, which largely established the authority of the state.

• In many countries, conflicts between Catholics and Protestants subsided as the church vs. state cleavage strengthened; Catholic and Protestant groups joined forces

Examples of parties formed around Secular-Clerical Cleavage

Christian Democratic parties throughout Europe and Latin America

Cleavage: Class

Workers vs. Owners

• The main point of conflict is free market vs. state intervention.

• Workers are (temporarily) protected by state intervention (e.g., tariffs); owners are helped by a free market.

• This cleavage gained prominence around the time of the Industrial Revolution

Examples of parties formed around Class Cleavage

Labor and Social Democratic parties throughout Europe and the Anglophone democracies

Cleavage: Ethnic

• Different ethnic (or linguistic) groups against one another.

• The main point of conflict centers upon which ethnic group should be dominant in society

Examples of parties formed around Ethnic Cleavage

ethnic parties around Africa; Swedish Party in Finland

Cleavage: Postmaterial

Progressive values vs. tradition

• The main points of conflict are issues of multiculturalism, gender, race, sexual orientation, and reproductive choice.

• This cleavage is more prominent in post-industrial societies, where the class cleavage is less important.

Examples of parties formed around Postmaterial Cleavage

“left-libertarian” parties, such as the Greens; radical right, populist parties

Cleavage: Nationalist-Globalist

• This is a new cleavage that has become more salient since the rise of globalization in the 1990s and the Great Recession of 2007–2009.

• The key concern is whether the country should be closed and autarkic or open and internationalist

Examples of parties formed around Nationalist-Globalist Cleavage

• More Europe Party in Italy Volt

• Party in several European countries

• Brexit Party in UK (now called Reform UK)

• Forum for Democracy in the Netherlands

• En Marche! in France (now called Renaissance)

Political parties serve four main purposes:

• Coordination

• Selection and Recruitment

• Mobilization

• Representation

Coordination (in governing)

• Parties operate as stable groups in the legislature.

• Parties can coordinate across levels and branches of government

• In the U.S., for example, Congressional Republicans are of the same entity as Republicans in the White House and Republicans in each state house

Coordination (between politicians and society)

• a party consists of both elected officials and individuals who do not seek office.

• Thus, elected officials and ordinary people organize around the same party labels

Selection and Recruitment

• Parties actively find people to run for office.

• People may be inspired by parties, thus intrinsically becoming politically active and perhaps even running for office.

Mobilization

• Parties provide candidates and link these candidates to a recognizable “brand” or idea, inducing team-like behavior.

• Parties spend money to “activate” members and voters.

• This increases turnout

Representation

• Parties speak and act for their supporters.

• direct democracy is difficult; parties represent the people

Partisanship in the Electorate

• elected officials and ordinary people organize around the same party labels.

• partisanship or party identification: psychological attachment to a political

party; is a powerful predictor of attitudes and vote choice in most of the world’s democracies

Where Does Partisanship Come From?

• Family transmission is the most powerful and consistent predictor of party identification

• Children often inherit their parents’ party ID through early socialization, absorbing cues about which party represents “people like us.”

Family transmission Process (Explicit)

parents advocate for and against different parties

Family transmission Process (Implicit)

children internalize their parents’ values and group identities

Partisanship as a “Screen”

• party ID is a “perceptual screen” that colors nearly all aspects of political judgment

• driven by motivated reasoning: people selectively believe information consistent with their partisan orientation while discounting sources associated with the other side

• As a result, partisans view objective realities differently.

— (For example, Democrats tend to evaluate the economy more favorably when a Democrat is president)

• partisans’ issue stances are shaped by leader

(For example, before 2016, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to support free trade; after President Trump framed trade as unfair and harmful, this pattern flipped) 

Partisanship is Receding

• Voters are becoming more politically sophisticated and thus don’t need or want a party cue.

• Increased media coverage and social media have cross-pressured voters.

• Voters have grown disillusioned with parties

Why Does Partisanship Vary Across Countries?

Proportional representation

• People vote directly for parties

Federalism

• More frequent elections means citizens are exposed to campaigns and accompanying news reports about parties more frequently.

Compulsory voting

• Obligatory voting reinforces party identification at each election.

• Unknowledgeable citizens rely on partisanship when forced to the polls.

Parliamentarism

• Legislators have an incentive to maintain party discipline and present the party to the electorate as a unified entity

(These all boost partisanship)

single-party system

one in which only one party has a realistic chance of gaining power

two-party system

one in which only two major parties have a realistic chance of gaining power

multiparty system

one in which more than two parties have a realistic chance of gaining power

Why are there differences in the number of parties across countries?

The electoral system

• Maurice Duverger noted that electoral systems have a “mechanical effect”

and a “strategic effect.”

Politicized social cleavages

• parties often form to represent politicized cleavages.

• Sometimes these are based on ethnic or religious groups.

— (Parties that represent such groups will usually be small; will do better under PR.)

Thus, we should see lots of political parties where there are lots of social cleavages and proportional representation

“mechanical effect”

it is hard to for small parties to win seats in majoritarian systems even with a nontrivial vote share, whereas in PR systems even small parties get seats.

“strategic effect”

in majoritarian systems, people will have an incentive to vote against preferred small parties, whereas in PR systems people aren’t afraid of “wasting their vote.”

Communist (C)

• seek wealth redistribution and public ownership of means of production

• often skeptical of the democratic system

Socialist/Social Democrat/Labor (SD)

• represent the working class

• do not advocate an overthrow of the capitalist economy

• work within the democratic system

• tend to support “modern” value

Liberal (L)

• support the free market; tend to support “modern” value

Christian Democrat/Conservative (CD)

• support the free market

• sometimes favor state support of Christian institutions and morality

• tend to support “traditional” value

Greens (G)

• relatively new parties that combine environmentalism, feminism, and social

  libertarianism

Radical Right-Wing Populists (RRP)

• nationalist

• skeptical of immigration and support the dominant ethnicity

• support order and rule of law

• “traditional” value

Party System Polarization

The electoral system matters a lot.

• Parties often “hunt” for voters in ideological space.

• Proportional electoral systems allow parties to gravitate toward the extremes, where they can try win votes from fringe groups.

• In a non-PR system, this would be a losing strategy

• Extra: Some countries have extreme parties for cultural or historical

  reasons.

Median Voter Theorem, non-PR Systems

Parties move to the center to capture the many centrist voters

Why Does Party System Polarization Matter?

The number and ideological spread of parties affects:

• The quality of representation

• The ability of government to get things done

• Satisfaction with democracy and voter turnout

• The influence of extreme parties

The U.S. as a Unique Case

Polarization has increased in the U.S., but the electoral system has remained constant, meaning it cannot be the cause of this increase.

Theories:

• Gerrymandering

• Geographic sorting: likeminded people have moved to similar areas.

• Primary elections: only the most involved-and perhaps most ideological-turn out to vote.

• Increased income inequality

E(u) = p x b – c + d (might not need to know this)

• general framework for deciding whether to take an action

• E(u) is expected utility

  — b is the direct benefit

  — p is the probability of your action leading to that benefit

  — c is costs

  — d is intrinsic benefits

• Expected utility = probability x direct benefit - costs + intrinsic benefits

It is rational to take the action if…

E(u) [expected utility] is greater than zero

the decision to turn out is the result of…

a cost-benefit analysis

When applying the decision equation to turnout…

b (direct benefit) is the benefit you would receive from the election of your preferred party/candidate

Why is the probability of your vote providing a direct benefit (p x b) very low?

the probability of your one vote changing the outcome of the election is almost zero

Is it Rational to Vote Equation

E(u) ≈ −c + d

• Expected utility ≈ -costs + intrinsic benefits

Individual-Level Factors Linked to Turnout

• Age

• Education

• Political Sophistication

• Income

Age 

• Older individuals have higher sense of civil duty → boosts intrinsic benefits from participation 

• Growing older increases one’s amount of information → decreases cost of learning about parties and candidates 

• turnout tends to decline for very old people

Education and Political Sophistication

• Educated individuals: have a higher sense of civic duty.

• Well-informed individuals: more knowledgeable about registration procedures and the location of polling places.

• Politically aware people: aware of party and candidate positions/ideologies

Income

Richer people are less concerned with the financial burden of voting.

• Ex: Transportation costs, Time off work

Low-income voters: more likely to put basic survival needs before political engagement or civic participation

Country-Level Factors Linked to Turnout

• Compulsory voting

• Electoral system

• Number of parties

• Party system polarization

• Federalism

• Competitiveness

Compulsory Voting

• Sanctioning those who do not vote → lowers the costs of voting

• decreases c (costs) in the expected utility calculation

• Turnout higher in countries where voting is mandator

• The turnout bump is biggest where compulsory rules are both sanctioned and enforced

• ex: Argentina, Australia, Luxembourg

Note: existed in the US but was dropped when formed in 1787; bills have been introduced in different states like New York 

Electoral Systems

• For minor party voters in non-proportional systems, p is even lower.

• In such systems, especially SMP systems, it is often impossible for minor parties to win.—

• the incentive to turn out in non-PR systems is lower for minor party voters.

• In non-PR systems, minor parties are less likely to waste resources making frivolous appeals for their supporters to turn out.

• Less mobilization means less turnout

• turnout is higher under PR. (this depends on how we measure PR)

Number of Parties

More parties increases the likelihood of a person finding a party they share an ideological stance with, meaning b will be higher.

Turnout is lower where there are more parties.

• It is more likely that winning parties will be part of a coalition government where there are many parties → decreases the b term.

• Voters may get overwhelmed by the multitude of choices and “give up” → Informational costs increase; boosts the c term

Party System Polarization

• positively linked to turnout

• increases the likelihood of a person finding a party they share an ideological stance with

• increases b (direct benefits)

Federalism/Number of Elections

• In federal countries, voters are called to the polls much more often → can lead to voter fatigue and increase costs

• In federal systems, many elections will be “lower-level.” (local and regional elections tend to have lower turnout)

Competitiveness

(Perceptions of competitiveness are equally important.)

• When elections are competitive, turnout is higher.

• Close elections increase the p term

• turnout tends to be higher in countries with smaller populations.