W Euro Exam 2

Mixed Member PR Systemys (MMPR) (compensatory and overhang seats, leveling

• - Mixed Member PR Systemys (MMPR) (compensatory and overhang seats, leveling)→A two-vote hybrid system that uses the proportionality of party list PR with the district representation of SMP; Key features: Electoral Threshold==Mixed Method (SMP district-level; PR national-level); Ballot Structure: Categorical (select 1 candidate; select 1 party); District Magnitude: Mixed-Member (M = 1 district-level; M > 1 national-level); One key feature of MMP is that voters cast two votes simultaneously: (a) electorate (The voter selects the candidate she would like to serve as district MP. This is the “SMP tier” ) ” (b) party list (The voter selects the party she would like to form a government. This is the “PR tier);

• electorate MPs do not necessarily attend to district interests.

• Process for MMP→:

• Voters cast two votes: (a) for their choice of district MP; (b) for the party they want to run parliament. 1) The district-level “electorate vote” (a) uses SMP: the candidate with a plurality wins the “electorate seat.” 2) The “party list vote” (b) uses PR: each party receives in proportion to its vote share a quota of total seats. 3) Usually, a threshold exists to deter hyper-fractionalization. Thus, not every party “qualifies” for a quota of seats.Thus, not every party “qualifies” for a quota of seats.) Using its electorate (SMP) seats, a party fills as much of its quota as possible. If filled, it needn’t go on to step 5. (quota is determined based on party list vote share) 4) If the party’s quota remains unfilled, then the party receives “compensatory seats” to reach its quota. Parties fill compensatory seats via (closed) party list 5) Should a party’s number of electorate (SMP) seats exceed its quota, an “overhang” occurs and the size of parliament expands. .

• Pros and Cons of MMP

• →Although it allows for proportional allocation and district representation, MMP has some undesirable attributes: Overhang and adjustment seats: The disproportionality of extreme overhang can affect government formation and policy=leveling to create fairer proportion of seats per party if one party gets overhand seats; Backdoor MPs: An electorate MP who loses her district seat nonetheless survives by winning a list seat. District MPs’ Behavior: Unlike true SMP MPs,

Referenda: Pros/Cons

Two types: • Advisory referenda (those that advised the policy makers on what they should do, but they are not mandated to follow through with them (ex: Brexit) ) Mandatory referenda (must follow what public say; constitutional changes usually require them (2016 Italian referendum))• Importance of referenda for issues that are controversial

• Pros and Cons of Referenda

  • Pros:

  • Democratic improvement– popular sovereignty • Disciplining the elected representatives • Encouraging political participation Cons:

  • Representative democracy is better – genuine direct democracy is only possible in very small communities • Too much information is necessary • Hard to know about everything • Representatives are more informed and can take better decisions • May cause voter fatigue

- Sartori’s criteria of (ir)relevance, explain (ON EXAM)

• Coalition potential : a party's likelihood to govern/rule the country if you get control; need seats!; every single party has this except: far right parties; most parties refuse to join with them like AFD; cannot govern the country, regardless of their parly seat share

• Blackmail potential→how much you can influence other party’s politics and party offering just by existing, even when not in gov; (afd’s presence led all parties to become more anti-immigrant to make up for their loses to an anti-immigrant party

The two approaches to count the number of parties in the system (counting the raw numbers vs. counting the parties based on their relative sizes) or part of Sartori's classification of party systems. (Here you do NOT need to know which countries are classified under which categories but please know what the differences are between these two versions, and why it is important to consider the relative sizes)

• First need to know which parties compose party system (use coalition/blackmail potential). Next, we need to count the relevant parties

• Approach 1: Counting the number of relevant parties– not considering their relative sizes

• Approach 2: Considering the relative sizes of parties; Effective number of parties: 1/ sum(vote share squared)

Difference bt raw number of relevant parties and effective number of parties→

difference between raw number of relevant parties and effective number of parties: weighting based on the vote share accounts for the unequal distribution of power among parties, unlike raw number

- Meaning of the centripetal vs. centrifugal competition/2nd part of sartori's classification of party system↔

• Centripetal (less polarized/more convergenet or simialr types of parties)

• Centrifugal (competition/more competition)=like US

Communist/ Left parties:

Home for dissatisfied social democratic voters who want more welfare state and labor market protection • Also “new politics” (post-materialist issues): environment, antimilitarism, anti-globalization • Prime examples: Podemos in Spain,

Green parties:

Environment but also anti-militarism, anti-discrimination, solidarity with the developing world, social justice, liberal tolerance to alternative lifestyles, commitment to participatory democracy • Prime examples: Greens in Germany

Social Democrats:

Goal has been using the power of public initiative to protect the less fortunate, promote equality of opportunity • In favor of EU to increase trade • Secular liberal tradition on issues if morality, conscience, sexuality • Prime examples: Labour in the UK

Liberals

Neoliberals: • Commitment to the free market and opposition to state interference in the economy or in moral matters • Harder line in recent years on immigration • Prime examples: VVD in the Netherlands • Social liberalism: • Tolerance and the promotion of civil liberties • More sympathetic to state intervention and to welfare state to ensure that people can enjoy the freedoms they should have • Prime example: D66 in the Netherlands

Center parties:

Formed to defend the interests of farmers but changed to centrist parties with the decline of agricultural sector • Target middle-class, small-town voters who care about private enterprise and traditional morality • Prime example: Swedish Centre Party

Far-Right parties:

Anti-immigration, xenophobia, free-market economy, anti-EU, populism/anti-establishment • But a lot of variation • Prime examples: Italian Brothers of Italy

Regional/ethnic parties: •

On economic and social issues might be everywhere from left to right, although richer ones are usually on the right and poorer ones on the left • Prime Examples: SNP in the UK

- British: For these you do not need to know the details about who was in government, when, how long, or the election results However, please know in general what the defining characteristics of each are andhow they differ from each other

• UK Party System

  • • A two-party system until 2010 • Labour Party on the left and Conservatives (Tory) on the right • “Predominant party system” or “alternating predominance”

  • UK uses single member plurality system like US;

  • disproportionality=bc they need plurality to win the seats, but therefore they will win a differing amount of seats compared to vote share;

German Party

• Used to be 2.5 party system,

• **Grand coalition: top 2 parties in the system/main enemies becoming a coalition of center right main party and center left main party (SPD and CDU; Ireland have been doing it)

• 2025 Election: • Regularly scheduled election was supposed to happen in September 2025 • The government after the 2021 election was Social Democrats (SPD) + Greens + Liberal Democrats (FDP) • Scholz fired the finance minister (from Liberal Democrats, FDP) due to not reconciling their different views on how to go forward with the economic policies • FDP left the government and that left the government in a minority position, which is untenable in Germany and hence Scholz called for an early election; CDU/CSU won formed grand coalition and refused to include AFD, second biggest party

Netherlands Party System→

•An evenly divided and a very crowded party system due to the very high district magnitude (the whole country being one district) and very low electoral threshold (0.67%) • It has always been a very crowded syste

• - Party change from cadre to mass, and then to catch-all parties. (Know the details of each type as much as we discussed in class. If I ask about this, I will indicate the specific citations/scholars for each type, so you do NOT need to memorize the full citations for each type.) Party Change (Duvergerr==Cadre/Mass) (Kircherimer=catch party)

• • Cadre Party: Small number of members (and seeks no expansion) • Importance of quality rather than quantity • Closed circle of elites • Two types in the late 19th century: Conservative and Liberal/Radical

  • Mass Party=Importance of members and numbers • Importance of keeping in touch with them • Regular meetings in between elections • Socialist invention after universal suffrage

  • Catch All party=Less ideological parties • Strengthening of top leadership • More centralized bureaucratized party • Downgraded role of the member • Emerged because of: Less strong party ID, deideologization of society, class politics is less important • Attempts to access a variety of interest groups (to secure electoral support) • Transcending group interests and creating general confidence; emphasis on programs that benefit a larger clientele – emphasis on national societal goals;

- Downs’s median-voter theorem: what does it mean, how does it work, the assumptions it makes to work, which assumptions are not realistic.→

• Median voter theorem– Downs, 1957

• Political parties who want to maximize their vote shares must move to the median voter position

• Assumptions: if everyone votes and votes for the parties closest to them ideologically=draw a line in the middle of the graph to show the divide;

• Don't see it bc= People have party identification and not just vote for the closest party • Parties’ competence, approval ratings, the leaders’ charisma also make a difference– not only policy position • Parties in fact have policy preferences • They themselves are ideologues • They try to keep the party organization intact • Big changes are unlikely • Parties do not know exactly where most voters are • Voters cannot know the exact location of parties

The role of political parteis and party organizations

- The roles of political parties→• Structuring political world • Recruiting and socializing the political elite • Providing linkage between rulers and ruled, between civil society and the state • Aggregating interests

Role of party organizations→• Preparing for and assisting in the running of election campaigns • Sustaining the party organization, membership, and other resources • Devising new public policies and strategies for the elected representatives in public office

- Different levels of basic party organization (from branches to the parliamentary caucus)↔

• Branches (District-based/local levels of political office)

• Delegates and annual conferences (Branches send out delegates to annual conferences (ex: in Europe, september party conferences))

• Party’s national executive (On top, there is a national executive: campaign director, VP, etc; leaders of poli aspects?)

• Party’s head office (lots of staff and leadership or basically the people that run the show)

• Parliamentary party or caucus=whole thing

- Who are the party members in Europe?↔

apply, go through the vetting process (make sure you’re legitimate in party interest), fee-paying; Supporters/voters vs members vs activists (convince ppl to join campaigns)

- Why are members important (Scarrow’s list)↔

• Membership dues as a source of finance (less with state funding)

• • Legitimacy benefits for party executives

• • Members act as “ambassadors to the community”

• • Members provide a recruitment pool

- Party membership has been declining: why? How is this question related to why people become members?↔

• Party’s care less about membership as well

• 3 main reasons in the past (before internet/60’s):

  • Material: you have smt tangible to gain from this like money/part of the party’s leadership/jobs;

  • Solidary: socalization/camaraderiship; coming together with other members (changed with internet, no longer happening)

  • Purposive: have certain policy goals; want to make sure party achieves your ideological purposes (still important)

make sure you have a good understanding of what parties have been doing about membership decline and why it is good or bad --understand the May’s Law of Curvilinear Disparity; )→

• • Many parties are trying to give more voice to members:

• • In electing leaders

• • In selecting the parliamentary election candidates for MP positions

• • In contributing to the discussions on party manifestos

• • In helping parties decide on important decisions, such as forming coalition governments

• • Members as a problem?

• • May’s Law of Curvilinear Disparity (1973): party activists/due-paying members are usually more extreme than regular party voters and party elites

• What can party’s do to prevent member choices from hurting them: choose more centrist/rep candidates themselves

- Potential danger of having manifesto positions→

Sometimes they work to their disadvantage: other parties may attack/new events may complicate follow through

- Why do parties need election manifestos?↔

• • To be taken seriously

• • With the hope that media will pick up some issues

• • To build their campaigns on solid ground

• • To send messages to key groups: Intraparty factions/groups

• • Potential coalition partners

• • Interest groups, unions etc.

• making pledges to voters that parties are forced to listen to;

- Do parties hold onto their manifesto promises?

•they do during their campaigns;

after election? More debatable, esp with coalitions bc you have to give up some promises to be able to join coal; failing to hold most of their promises leads to election loses

- Party finance: internal vs. external sources

• Internal:

• Membership dues

• Contributions by parliamentary deputies and ministers

• Fund-raising activities

• Newspapers

• External:

• Private donations

• State funding

- pros and cons of state funding of parties

• • Pros:

• • Greater independence from interest groups/member demands (remember the May’s Law)

• • Reduces corruption

• • Parties who do not have wealthy organizations to rely on can still survive

• • Cons:

• • Less dependence on membership– less accountability

• • Rise of party within state, serving to state

• • Inequality between bigger and smaller parties

- Variations for the selection process of the party candidates across Europe

• US-like primaries: Iceland

• Others/elections/selections within parties

• • Within-party primaries: Austria, British Labour Party

• • In some countries: provision for party primaries but not used: Belgium, Denmark, Germany • Importance of local branches in some (e.g., Norway)

• • Past few decades: increasing role has been given to members in selecting the candidates and leaders

- Who are the party leaders in Europe?

• Ex: Leader of the party usually has a seat in gov in the UK;not a requirement in general, but most major parties do for most countries

• Germany: leader is often also chancellor candidate=not required; 1998: Social Democrats had very left wing leader, so they chose a more moderate candidate to win

• In countries like Scandinavia, the leader can be completely apart of parliament nor parliamentary candidates

- How important are the leaders (why are they important)?

• The rising importance of party leadership in catch-all parties

• • Politics becoming more personalized/presidentialized even in parliamentary systems

• • “During elections, there is significant leader-centered campaigning and media coverage ”Evaluations of party leaders influence vote choice, and the (un)popularity of the party leader can determine an organization’s electoral success .”

• • “After elections, governments are established, sustained, and terminated based on the decisions of party leaders . The leader also typically holds the most prestigious government post available to the party when in office, including the position of prime minister.”

• • “Beyond shaping access to office, the leader also helps determine the policies his or her party aims to implement once in government

- What are the reasons for why the leaders are replaced? What is the most important reason?↔

• Performance-related drop leads most often lead to them losing their role/resigning

• Actual reason vs stated reason=often try to conceal the reason motivation

• Stated reason

  • Election loss (national level/parliamentary; local elections/as parameters for countries futures, EU, referendum loss);

  • Office loss

  • Death in office

  • Loss during leadership election/intraparty contest (confidence vote in party conference)

  • Interparty pressures/scandals (never explicitly mentioned but they are big)

• Resignation: staged show to prevent loss to the party and ensure “right” person replaces you

- What are the selection methods for party leaders (from most exclusive to most inclusive)?

• • Previous leader’s selection/ appointment

• • Executive committee decision by party’s leadership (less and less likely nowadays)

• • Parliamentary faction (MPs) (MPs) or parliamentary causes

• • Delegates in party conference (local reps of the party who come together in an annual conference)

• • Party members in a conference or by mail

• Or a combination of different groups allowed to vote • Example: Labour Party’s 2010 leader election

• [for the Labour and Conservative Party details, I only need you to know the broad details—who are the selectorates, and how do they select the leaders, not the names, results, numbers)

• - How did the Labour Party (UK) used to elect their leader (the procedure for the 2010 election), how did they elect the most recent leader (Starmer)?

• After this changed to pure membership vote

• Nominees could run is a certain percentage of Labor MPs supported them

• At the time, they had 3 electorates: MPs of Commons and MEPs of the EU; registered party members; affiliated organizations like trade unions/socialist societies; equally weighted for each group

• Electoral system: alternative vote system (preference order where until majority is achieved, the votes keep getting redistricted in order of choices where least popular is elimated and their vote share is then redistributed)

- How does the process work in the Conservative Party?

• First step: nominate (min requirement of MP support which changes based on the caucas/number of MPs in parly)

• 2 consituties:

  • MPs decide the top 2 candidates

  • Members then vote to elect the leader

- O’Brien’s paper: How do women become party leaders? (supply-side factors, glass cliff theory, her hypotheses, and findings) How long do they last in office? (her expectations and findings)

• Here theory: “There is reason to believe that men and women do not enjoy the same opportunities with respect to party leadership.

• Women may have differing motivations/ambitions at the start, but once they get elected, their ambition is not different from males=why are they not in leadership positions?

• O’Brien: performance-based explanation: the glass-cliff theory: • “parties’ political performances create distinct opportunity structures for male and female would-be leaders. In particular, women are likely to continue to be excluded from power when the post is desirable—that is, when parties are performing well. A poor political performance, in contrast, makes the post less attractive to potential competitors and increases parties’ willingness to deviate from the status quo and select new types of leaders.”

• • “More generally, a growing body of research suggests that women are likely to face a “glass cliff”—that is, they are more likely to be selected for leadership posts when there is a high risk of organizational and leadership failure (Ryan and Haslam 2005, 2007).

• Hypotheses/found support for: first emerge in oppostion/unaligned parties; in minor parties; especially in minor opposition parties; in parties with unfavorable electoral trajectories; When facing with unfavorable electoral trajectory, they are are more likely to leave their posts than males; when faced with favorable electoral trajectory, they are more likely to stay in office

  .

The difference between political extremists and political radicals

• - The difference between political extremists and political radicals

  • Extreme: much rarer; want to replace democracy to facism (right) or communism (left). extremism is directly opposed to democracy.

  • Radicalism calls for “root and branch” reform of the political and economic system but does not explicitly seek the elimination of all forms of democracy.

  • Radical parties are inherently “anti-system,” and their radicalism must be understood with respect to the system in which they exist. In Europe, this system is typically liberal democracy and capitalism.

  • German parties divide extremist parties that are anti-democratic are banned, while radical parties which question key aspects of the constitution are not unconstitutional like extremist parties, but anticonsitutioal

- Extreme left and extreme right parties’ ideologies and one example from each

• Left:

• “Left-wing variants are opposed to the capitalist system on the grounds that it produces artificial levels of inequality. They seek a major redistribution of power to alleviate inequality, espouse collective economic and social rights, and adopt an egalitarian, universalist, and often internationalist agenda

• Italian Communist party (shifted from extremism to detaching from Soviet Union leading to radicalism)

• Right:

  • view inequality as part of the natural order and not something that should be subject to state intervention • desire to create an authoritarian system that is strictly ordered according to the “natural” differences that exist in society, as well as a law-and-order system that severely punishes deviant behavior

  • Italian Brothers of Italy (governing party in Italy rn; were originally seen as followers of Mussolini, but are now acting like a radical party; video=leader who really liked Mussolini);

  • Greek Golden Down (clearly extremist; there whole leadership was found guilty of crimes=all 67 members are in PRISON WHAT; ) (we may do the hitler salute, but at least our hands are clean??)

- Definitions of populism, inclusionary and exclusionary populism, nationalism, civic and ethnic nationalism, ethnopluralist nationalism, nativism↔

• populist==type of a political movement that puts the people against the elite; views society into two homogenous, antagonistic groups; “pure” ppl vs corrupt elite (anti-establishment); sees the people as more morally good and is anti-pluralist; the people are imagined, not real=on the left, it is the working class; on the left, it is the natives that belong to a certain ethnicity, race, religion, etc

  • can be inclusionary (left-wing; want rights to be extended to marginalized groups) or exclusionary (right-wing; want to exclude certain groups from access to certain rights)

  • Nationalism:

    • Congruence bt state (political bounds of a country) and nation (who the ppl are)=the nation is seen as composing the state, and they are seen as equal terms;

    • Civic nationalism: the state is the primary unit of the civic organization; people choose to be part of civic nationalism; immigrants are welcome as long as they become part of the nation (left wing)

    • Ethnic nationalism: excludes ppl of diff ethnic groups regardless of what they do

      • Nativism

        • Combines nationalism with xenophobia

        • The natives are imagined (ex: Aryan race for Nazis)

        • Ethnopluralist view

        • considers different cultures to be equal, but distinct and thus incompatible. Proponents of ethnopluralism claim to celebrate cultural differences and argue that these differences must be protected from things like mass migration, cultural imperialism, and one-worldism. The cultural mixing that occurs in multicultural societies is considered a form of national genocide (Griffin 2000). The goal is to establish an ethnic democracy, an ethnocracy, where priority is given to protecting one’s own people. Ethnopluralism envisions a culturally diverse world composed of monocultural nation-states

Populist Radicals right examples

• Polulist Radicals

  • Most far right parties in Europe?

    • Austrian FPO (largest parties; other parties just formed coalition to keep them out)

    • German AFD: became 2nd largest party in recent elections=change in that far right now has increasing influence in Germany; party leader is Alice Weidel; policy of “remigration”=unclear; SHE”S GAY AND HER WIFE IS LITERALLY SYRIAN WTF; WHY IS ELON MUSK HERE; firewall=informal pact by other parties to not share power with the far right=will hopefully not take pwr?

Neoliberal Right

• Not currently existing anywhere

• More focused on econ debate (still xenophobic but not emphasized)

• More about allocating more econ resources

• With the increase of anti-immigration=impossible to not be xenophobic

Political Radical on the Left

• Anti-liberal but dem/want to work within the system

• German Left Party (die Linke): win alot of support with young women esp with social media=won seats in parly recently

• Spain’s Podemos=capitalized on financial criss of 2008; very powerful in early 2000s, but are now going down

- Demand for the rise of far-right (as much details as we discussed in class. If I ask about any of the specific studies we discussed in this section, I will provide the citation.)→

Neither on left or right, other than Fidez (2022), controls the majority support; Lots of media attention/sensationalization=Europe’s coalition system helps with this (ex: AFD’s support was only 20%) much better than US (bruh ;( ) Lots of checks/balances that are controlling them at this point

Supply Side Explanations for rise of the far right(ADD IN)

1. Political opportunity structure: 

• Determines how open a political system is for political entrepreneurs/parties

• Depends on: Electoral rules/permissiveness (Ex: Germany is stricter such as 5% threshold)

• Party Competition: 

  • Convergence (all mainstream parties moving here; more populist) (easier for parties to move to far right or far left bc they are all on the center; also raise anti-establishment sentiments bc voters feel they don’t have a voice) vs move to center (one party moving over??; allow right to take them; more traditional spatial argument) (focuses just on where right party moves??)

  • Issue ownership/salience:

  • (whether or not there is space to compete on multi-dimensional issues==voters care alot about diff things, so if parties don’t focus on what voters care about, another party can appeal to them that way); voters aren’t going to vote unless the issues are salient;

  • ownership==owning a specific topic (ex: mainstream=economic; social dems own welfare; center right owns tax cuts)

  • The media and the discursive opportunity structure: the media can ignore far right parties; can talk abt them + or -;  (other two raise salience)

  • Political cleavage strucuture: social or cultural line which divides citizens within a society into groups with differing political interests.; most common is class, but now it globalization, new issues are increasing in salience; dealignment==parties that were once loyal to parties stop being reliable voters; creates a pool of floating voters (can create electoral volatility==less predictable/harder to form coalitions)

2. Party Organization

• Argues party org is important bc strong organization system gives them higher staying power (neccessary for persistence) (depends on strong leaders, card carrying members, activists, etc) 

• Need to have branches in local consitutites to increase your support 

• How many MPS you have 

3. Winning Idealogy 

   • Pro free market, pro capitalism, but also nativist/xenophobic etc

   • Econ aspect is less important but always strongly nativist/anti-immigrant 

   • Welfare chavism==common winning strategy; when you want a welfare state but only for natives==exclusionary 

   • People vote for these parties bc they agree with their ideologies

Mainstream Party Response to Niche Parties

• Mainstream parties: Broad appeal, large voter base, focus on general issues, often part of government.

• Niche parties: Specific interests, smaller voter base, focus on particular issues, often marginalized.

• Examples of niche parties: Green parties, single-issue parties.

• Mainstream parties often adapt to changing public opinion.

• Niche parties may struggle for visibility and influence.

Meguid (2005) presents three strategies of mainstream parties: what are they, do they help/hurt niche parties, why, and what is missing in Meguid’s work?

• Do not have a permissive electoral system (make it harder for new parties to win things=thresholds and have strong party organizations)

• Don’t move to the center (leaves to much space on the side for extremism)

• State response of niche parties

  • American=equally treat all political idealogies=not role of state to interfere

  • German=laws against parties that are against their poli order=ban them

• Party response to rise of niche parties:

  • Niche parties=reject traditional class based orientation and politisize new issues; Apeeal to voters that cross cut traditional partisan alignments=thsoe that kind of cross the poli spectrum; limited issue appeals=focus on like on issue and not bring in everything else mainstreams touch on

  • Focus on Greene/mainstream parties

  • 3 Strategies:

    • Accomodative: they have to adopt a similar strategy to the niche party raising salience of issue

    • Adversarial: oppose the issue of the niche party but raises salience

    • Dismissive: ignore the issue and don’t address=not salience increasing

    • What are the expectations of success?

      • When parties are accomodative, it hurts niche bc it decreases their issue ownership; Adversarial helps→increases salience of the issue; Dismissive↔hurts niche party bc decreases salience

Demand for the rise of far-right with as much details as we

discussed in class. If I ask about any of the specific studies we discussed in this section, I

will provide the citation

1. Modernization grievances • “Individuals who are unable to cope with rapid and fundamental societal change—the modernization losers—turn to the far right.” • Inglehart 1977 and Ignazi 1992 • Post-materialism vs. silent counter-revolution

2. Economic grievances • “In times of economic scarcity, social groups with conflicting material interests compete over limited resources. Under these conditions, members of the ingroup are apt to blame the outgroup for economic problems, engendering prejudice and discrimination. Far right parties can exploit these economic grievances” • Dancygier 2010: the importance of electoral power

3. Cultural Grievances: • Social identity theory: “individuals have a natural tendency to associate with similar individuals, and that an inherent desire for self-esteem causes people to perceive their ingroup as superior to outgroups.” • “Far right parties are able to exploit and encourage these natural tendencies by highlighting the (alleged) incompatibility of immigrant behavioral norms and cultural values with those of the native population.” • Importance of large immigrant groups: mixed findings