Key Concepts in State Formation, Political Regimes, and Democracy

State

An organization that claims a legitimate monopoly on the use of force within a given territory

State capacity

The ability of a state to carry out its functions effectively such as collecting taxes enforcing laws maintaining order and providing services

State scope

The range of activities and institutions that the state is responsible for or involved in

State vs. capacity vs. scope

State = what it is; capacity = what it can do; scope = how much it does

Charles Tilly

A scholar who argued that warfare and competition helped create stronger modern states

War makes the state; states make war

Warfare encourages states to develop stronger governments while stronger states gain the resources and capacity to wage war

Tilly's basic logic

War → need for resources → taxation/extraction → bureaucracy → stronger state

Why rulers needed resources

Rulers needed money soldiers and administrative organizations to compete with rival states

War and taxation

Warfare forced rulers to extract more resources from their populations

War and bureaucracy

Warfare encouraged rulers to develop stronger administrative systems to collect taxes and organize armies

Why states make war

Stronger states have the resources and bureaucracies needed to compete with other states

Tilly's main assumption

State formation was driven largely by coercion violence competition and rulers' efforts to survive rather than primarily by voluntary agreement

Political regime

The set of rules that regulates how political power is accessed and exercised

State as hardware

The state's physical and administrative institutions such as the police military and bureaucracy

Political regime as operating system

The rules governing how political power is obtained and used

Government as user

The elected officials who operate the state within the rules of the political regime

Questions a regime answers

Who gets political power how they get it how they can use it and what limits exist on their power

Classical doctrine of democracy

The idea that democracy is a system in which people elect representatives to make decisions for the common good

Schumpeter's criticism

There is no single common good that everyone agrees on

Different preferences

People have different ideas about which policies are best

Irrational or uninformed preferences

Individuals may have false information or use poor reasoning when forming political preferences

Influenced preferences

People's political preferences may be influenced by other people

Schumpeter's conclusion

Combining everyone's preferences does not necessarily produce the greatest good for the greatest number

Schumpeter's alternative

Democracy should be understood as competition among political elites for political power through elections

Strength of Schumpeter's definition

It focuses on observable and measurable procedures especially competitive elections

Weakness of Schumpeter's definition

It assumes people can freely form and express political preferences

Rights limitation

It does not sufficiently emphasize individual rights and freedoms

Participation limitation

It focuses heavily on elections and may overlook political participation outside elections

Accountability limitation

It does not fully address checks balances or limits on government power

Schumpeter in one phrase

Elections + competition but less emphasis on rights + accountability

Dahl's polyarchy

A term for real-world political systems that come close to the democratic ideal

Dahl's two dimensions

Contestation and inclusiveness

Contestation

The amount of political competition opposition and freedom that exists

Inclusiveness

The number of people who are allowed and able to participate in politics

High contestation

Many opportunities for political competition and opposition

High inclusiveness

A large portion of the population can participate politically

High contestation + high inclusiveness

A country approaches polyarchy

Presidentialism

A system in which the president is head of state and chief executive serves a fixed term and does not depend on legislative confidence to remain in office

Parliamentarism

A system in which the prime minister is chief executive and the government depends on legislative support to remain in office

Key difference between presidentialism and parliamentarism

Legislative responsibility meaning whether the government depends on the legislature's confidence to remain in office

Legislative responsibility

The ability of the legislature to remove a government through a confidence or no-confidence vote

Presidential fixed term

The president normally serves a predetermined term and cannot be removed simply because the legislature withdraws confidence

Presidential legislature

The legislature cannot remove the government through a confidence or no-confidence vote

Presidential separation of powers

Executive and legislative power are institutionally separated

Presidential potential problem

Conflict can occur between the president and legislature

Parliamentary government

The government depends on support from the legislature

Parliamentary removal

The legislature can remove the government through a no-confidence vote

Parliamentary power structure

Executive and legislative power are more closely connected

Easy comparison

Presidentialism = president is separate from legislature; parliamentarism = government depends on legislature

Minority government

A government that does not have majority support in the legislature

Minority governments in parliamentary systems

They are difficult to sustain because the government needs legislative confidence and can be removed through a no-confidence vote

Minority governments in presidential systems

They are more institutionally sustainable because the president does not need legislative confidence to remain in office

Key difference in minority governments

Presidential governments can remain in office without majority legislative support while parliamentary governments depend on legislative confidence

Important clarification

Minority governments can occur in both systems under some circumstances but they are institutionally easier to sustain in presidential systems

Electoral system

The set of rules used to turn votes into seats

District magnitude

The number of seats available in each electoral district

Electoral formula

The rule used to convert votes into seats

Ballot structure

The choices and voting method available to voters

Electoral threshold

The minimum percentage or number of votes needed to win a seat

Four dimensions of electoral systems

District magnitude; electoral formula; ballot structure; and threshold

Plurality rule

The candidate with the most votes wins even without receiving more than 50%

Plurality district

A single-member district with one seat

Plurality ballot

Voters cast one vote for one candidate

Plurality in one phrase

Most votes wins

Absolute majority rule

A candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote to win

Absolute majority second round

If no candidate receives more than 50% a second round is held

Absolute majority in one phrase

More than 50% required

Closed-list PR

Parties receive seats based on their vote share while voters choose a party and the party determines the order of candidates

Closed-list voter control

Voters choose the party but do not choose which candidates from that party receive seats

Open-list PR

Parties receive seats proportionally while voters can indicate which candidates within the party they prefer

Open-list voter control

Voters have influence over which candidates from a party receive seats

Easy comparison of electoral rules

Plurality = most votes; absolute majority = over 50%; closed list = party controls candidate order; open list = voters influence candidate order

Plurality advantage

Tends to produce stronger majorities and potentially more decisive governments

Plurality disadvantage

Can underrepresent smaller parties and minority viewpoints

PR advantage

Produces representation that more closely reflects voters' overall preferences

PR disadvantage

Can produce more parties coalition governments and potentially less decisive governments

Plurality vs. PR tradeoff

Plurality emphasizes government effectiveness and decisiveness; PR emphasizes representation

Closed-list advantage

Gives parties greater control over which candidates receive seats and can strengthen party discipline

Closed-list disadvantage

Gives voters less control over individual candidates

Open-list advantage

Gives voters more control over which candidates are elected

Open-list disadvantage

Can weaken party discipline because candidates compete with one another within parties

Closed vs. open list tradeoff

Closed list emphasizes party control; open list emphasizes voter control

Party system

The collection of political parties in a country and the way they interact

Demand

Social divisions within society create demand for political parties

Social cleavage

A major division within society that political parties can represent

Examples of social cleavages

Class; urban vs. rural; religion; ethnicity; language; secular vs. religious; post-materialist values

More social cleavages

Can create greater demand for more parties to represent different groups

Supply

Electoral institutions determine which parties can realistically win seats

Plurality and party supply

Plurality systems tend to disadvantage small parties

PR and party supply

PR systems make it easier for smaller parties to gain representation

Key idea of demand and supply

Social divisions create demand for parties while electoral rules determine which parties can survive

Duverger's Law 1

Plurality electoral systems tend to produce two-party systems

Duverger's Law 2

Proportional representation tends to produce multiparty systems

Mechanical effect

The direct effect of electoral rules on how votes are converted into seats

Mechanical effect under plurality

Small parties can receive many votes but win few or no seats favoring larger parties

Strategic effect

The way voters and politicians anticipate electoral consequences and change their behavior

Strategic voting

Voting for a candidate with a realistic chance of winning instead of one's first-choice candidate

Strategic entry

Politicians choosing to run under or join a party with a realistic chance of winning

Plurality strategic effect

Voters and politicians have incentives to support or join larger parties

Plurality result

Mechanical punishment of small parties plus strategic behavior creates a stronger two-party tendency