Comparative Politics Final

What are institutions (formal/informal)

They rules of a structure in society.

Formal rule: written or officially defined, precise rules that are part of a structured system, such as a filibuster

Informal rule: unwritten norms or traditions, this can be seniority in a chamber, where the older speaks first

Majoritarian vs. consensus visions of democracy and institutions (Lijphart)

Majoritarian: In elections, citizens choose between two different teams that are competing to form the government. policy is formed by the majority, minority has no influence.

• ex. US

Consensus: citizens choose representatives from a wide range of social groups as possible. this is to produce a legislature that is a reflection of society as a whole.

• ex. Sweden

Veto players—institutional and partisan (Tsebelis)

individuals or groups whose agreements are necessary for change to the status quo.

institutional veto players: generated by the constitution or similar document

• ex. president, legislature, etc.

partisan veto platers: result of the political game

• ex. political parties

Veto Players Theory

the number of veto players and the ideological distance between them has important consequences for policy stability.

• more players w/ conflicting policy preferences= greater policy stability, smaller shifts

Winset/Status quo and policy stability/change

policy alternatives that would defeat the status quo— what the overlapping options are.

• bigger winsets= policy is less stable

• smaller winsets= policy is more stable

Unitary vs. federal systems

unitary has a single powerful government that is sovereign, power can be devolved but can be taken back.

• frace, Sweden, UK

federal has a central authority with power to sub-national governments that are in the constitution.

• germany, Belgium, switzerland

Dual v. cooperative federalism

Layer cake (dual) v. marble cake (cooperative)

• Layer cake (dual): the different forms of government are separate

• Marble cake (cooperative): all of the different forms are deeply intertwined

Congruent v. incongruent federalism

• Congruent: people are not separated based on things like race or religion, but rather on geography

• Incongruent: people are separated based on things like race or religion

Subsidiarity

Decisions are made at the lowest possible level they can be made at

• Ex. Education decisions, pushed down from federal government, to state government, to city government

Where do we tend to find unitary/federal states?

Federal states - larger, more plural societies

Unitary states - smaller, more homogenous societies

Decentralization

shifting of power, responsibilities, or decision-making from the central government

Devolution

when central governments legally grant/transfer some decision-making powers to lower levels

• Spain and UK

Devolution (1997 UK Referendum)

PM allowed for referendums on devolution

• voting on physical representatives to parliaments in Wales + Scotland

• approved by 50.3% of population

• devolved power to regions

• support growing for devolved parliaments

Unicameralism

government that is one chamber and majoritarian. It can only be a unitary state.

Congruent v. incongruent bicameralism

Congruent: when the 2 legislative chambers are similar

incongruent: the chambers have different political compositions

Role of second chambers

they represent citizens of sub-national geographic units. this means different interests and more veto players.

Pros and cons of second chambers

pros: more independence from executive, consensus, diversity of representation

cons: gridlock, duplication, redundancy, lack of power

Reforms to second chambers (Ireland, Canada)

Ireland: referendum to abolish senate— failed

Canda: proposed senate reform— triple E senate that works well

Presidential systems

when president is both head of state and government

Presidential Powers

varies across countries but they usually can issue decries, initiate bills, veto power, legislative override, budget control

• depends on if it’s a unified or divided government

• depends on the person holding office

Are presidents necessary/sufficient for presidential systems? Why?

necessary but not sufficient for a system to be presidential.

Semi-presidential system

combines elements of presidential and parlimentary systems

• PM and cabinet appointed by President who are responsible to parliament

  • france, Poland,

A kind of Semi-Presidentialism: Co-habitation

• President of one part and Prime Minister of another Party

• Happens in midterm election

• Three periods in French 5th Republic (since 1958)

  • Most recent 1997-2002 (Chirac/Jospin)

    • President Jacques Chirac (UMP -Conservative Party)

    • PM Lionel Jospin (PS - Socialist)

Parliamentary system (head of govt/head of state)

head of government is the Prime Minister

head of state is the President or the Monarch— ceremonial rule

• Consensus government

Constitutional Monarchy

Example is Kind Charles III— UK

President as head of state

Example is Frank Walter Steinmeier— Germany

Prime Minister

• indirectly elected, head of the largest party in parliament

• no fixed terms

• head of government

Primus inter pares

means “the first among equals”

• equals are the other ministers in the cabinet

Types of parliamentary government

1. Single Party Majority

2. Majority Coalition (2+ parties)

3. Minority governments: Lack majority in parliament

4. Single Party Minority

5. Minority Coalition (2+ parties)

Cabinet can collective responsibility

meaning that parties aren’t competing for a voice in parliament, they are supposed to drop their party alignments once they are in government

Prime Minister’s question time (what is it, who asks/answers questions)

when the government goes before parliament and take questions from MPs (members of Parliament) and leaders of opposition parties

• executive oversight role of parliament

Formateur

a part of the government formation process; the person that forms the government, usually the head of the largest party

• proposes coalition based on seats in lower chamber

Investiture vote

formal vote that votes on the PM and their cabinet to take office to officially show they have majority

Vote of no confidence

a check on power on the government, if they don’t like the wya things are being run, they can take a vote of confidence

Consideration in government formation: policy v. office

type of government that is selected reflects office or policy as a priority

• parties don’t want to compromise on their values just to be in government alongside another party

Government Types

single party majority: UK

majority coalition: Germany

single party minority: Spain

minority coalition: Norway

surplus/oversized coalition: Italy

minimum winning coalition: Germany

grand coalition: Germany

connected coalition: Sweden 2022

Electoral system

system by which parties or candidates are elected to office, how the elections happen and how votes are converted into seats

Party system

system in which the political parties take on a certain form or character. in a given party system, there is typically a set number of parties

• the US has a two party system

Candidate-Centered Systems: FPTP, two-round plurality, AV 

FPTP: First Past the Post, SMD, SMDP zero-sum

• US, UK, India

• candidate with the most votes wins

Alternative vote— two round Plurality

• there are two rounds if no candidate gets majority in 1st round

• presidential: top 2 advance to the Run-off

• Legislative: need 12.5% (France)

Party-Centered Systems: PR, [district magnitude, list systems (open/closed), thresholds, electoral formulas], MMP, STV

Proportional Representation

• Brazil, Portugal

1. Multi-member districts

• District magnitude>1

1. List (open v. closed)

• Open is when you can see the names of the people that are on the slates/parties

• Closed is when the names aren't available, only the parties

1. Threshold

2. Electoral formula

MMP: Mixed or Personalized PR

• germany, New Zealand

  • combines both PR and SMD

  • voter has 2 votes, 1 for party, 1 for candidate

STV: PR-Single Transferable

• Ireland

• rank the numbers of candidates that are seats. can vote for multiple candidates from one party

Duverger’s Law and Hypothesis

Duverger's Law: SMD ---> 2 parties

• Law in the political science sense

• When 2 parties are in power

• Vote strategically

Duverger's  Hypotheses: PR ---> multiple parties

• Voting for any party is a reasonable vote

Electoral reform in New Zealand (Denemark)

agreeing to work with one another in Minority Coalitions

Parties vs. interest groups

only parties are active in the electoral arena

Where do parties come from (cleavages/postmaterialism)

cleavage theory: Class, religion, rural/urban, center/periphery

• Religion: parties that justify their views from whatever religion they are a part of

• Rural/urban: where you live impacts your views

• Center/periphery: similar to previous, those who live in a political center/area that really cares about issues that affect them

Post materialism (Niche Parties)

• Talking about quality of life and furthering the country

  • Green parties

  • Far-right parties

    • Anti-immigration policies

Functions of parties: electorate, org., govt

3 functions:

1. parties in the electorate

2. parties as organizations

3. parties in government

Roles of parties/party change/ are parties in decline? (Economist article)

parties are losing authority, declining in public trust, and have negative partisanship

Parties in emerging democracies & authoritarian states

parties in emerging illiberal democracies can also have negative qualities

• Vehicle for strong leader

• Conduit for corruption

• Can threaten, bribe voters

• Marginalize competition

• Ex. Russia, Venezuela

Types of party systems: dominant, two-party, multi-party (moderate/polarized)

Dominant: win over and over

• PRI in Mexico until 2000

2 party:

• US, UK

Muliparty

• moderate (# of parties)

  • Germany

• polarized (Lots of parties getting elected)

• Belgium, Italy

Determinants of party systems

• Electoral System (Duverger's Law and Hypothesis)

  • Strategic voting

• History

• Homogeneity/heterogeneity of society

• Changing party ideologies, parties get weaker/stronger

• Voter preferences/party responses

• Dealignment

Effects of party systems (on parliaments, governments, voters)

 (RILE) spectrum

Parliament and gov: number of parties in parliament, the government typically, and policy outcomes

Voters; Strategic v. sincere voting, choice, turnout

Green parties as ex. of party system change (Economist article)

• they have shifted away from being purely left-wing and their party has conservative members for right-wing appeal

• they provide a more center choice as opposed to the country’s radical AfD

Mainstream party convergence and extreme party support (Spoon and Klüver)

VAP v. VEP

VAP: Voting Age Population

VEP: Voting Eligible Population

Explaining turnout (individual, institutional and 

party/election factors)

indvidual factors include age, education, community ties, group membership, partisanships

institutional factors include electoral system, registration, Election Day as a holiday/ weekend, compulsory/madatory

election and party factors include high/low states election, mobilization

Explaining voter choice and how this has changed

voter choice can depend on social groups, partisanship, strategic vs. sincere voting

this has changed because of party favoring (partisanship) and people’s class/religion

Dealignment (causes and consequences)

Causes:

• Decline in class differences

• Rising education

• Different channels for participation

• Parties’ policy convergence

• Disillusionment

Consequences

• Decrease in voter turnout

• Increase in electoral volatility

• Increase in split ticket voting

• Increase in issue and candidate voting

Relationship between electoral system, party system, 

and vote/vote choice

the electoral system effects how the parties operate which affects how voters will vote

Compulsory voting (websites)