Lecture 6: Voting behavior and election rules

What factors influenced the formation of party families in Western democracies (1) and why did it differ in non-Western democracies? (3)

1) In Western democracies, historical cleavages influenced the formation of party families, whereas in non-Western democracies, cleavages didn't shape parties due to late democratization.

2) Non-Western democracies often have presidential systems, leading to more personalized politics.

3) Ideology is comparatively less important in non-Western democracies, resulting in limited academic research in this area.

What is a synonym for voting behavior?

= electoral behavior

What are the thee elements of social cleavages?

1) social divisions between groups in society

2) collective identity and willingness to act on this basis

3) social divisions need to be expressed through organizations such as church, trade unions and political parties

Within social cleavages affecting voting behavior, there are two sociological theories through which you can explain it. Which two are they?

1) group identification

2) party identification

In theory, how does group identification affect voting behavior?

(sociological model)

= verzuiling in dutch

- cleavages resulted in pillars (social groups)

- pillars had their "own parties"

- voters identify with their group

- voters almost automatically voted for the party of their group

- pillars provided the social structure for voting behavior

What types of pillars were there?

labor, religious / christian, socialist etc

Cleavages in the NL in the 20th century: what was the most important for dutch citizens when voting in the 20th century?

Religious denomination = your religious pillar was most important and you'd vote for CDA --> only if you weren't religious (secular) you'd vote for labor parties

Is there empirical evidence for this sociological explanation (group identification) as to how and why people vote? explain the evidence.

yes!

1956: 30% of the dutch population practiced catholicism of this 30% of society --> 95% voted for the catholic party = very strong correlation!!

--> this is the empirical evidence that the sociological explanation is in fact true

What are 3 developments in 2003?

1) secularization = people become less religious

2) predictive power of the cleavage theory goes down / becomes smaller: because you cannot simply predict that the religious people will vote for their respective religious parties

3) size of groups (working class, middle class, religious) changes and it becomes harder to predict their voting behavior

In theory, how does party identification affect voting behavior?

(sociological model)

- developed in the US, where divisions in society are not that strongly related to support for a party

- USA has strong party identification = you identify directly with a party instead of a social group

- you build your opinion on issues based on the info the party gives you adopt the party's political positions --> the party thus has a lot of power this way and is very dominant

- again, voters almost automatically vote for the party because they identify with it

Is there empirical evidence for this sociological explanation of party identification affecting voting behavior?

in most countries vs USA?

In most countries

- after WW2, party identification decreases in most countries and can therefore not shape voting behavior much

USA

- party identification has been constant since 1970s

- graph shows that voters do take cues from political parties, e.g. about the state of the economy

- in USA how you view the economy is very much based on if you're a democrat or a republican and if your president is in office

There are also two rational models that affect voting behavior, what are the 2 models?

1) Ideology --> spatial model

2) Performance of government

What is ideology and spatial model?

ideology is a persons own set of values, beliefs and norms that guide them in life

the spatial model are these two axises with one being progressive/conservative and the other left/right:

1) know your own ideology

2) know the parties ideologies

3) choose a party that is closes to your own ideology

How does ideology and spatial model shape voting behavior?

(rational model)

- YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL AND YOU ARE YOURSELF

- you have your own beliefs, norms, ideologies

- therefore you can think for yourself where you fall in the spectrum of parties

- you will locate yourself in the political landscape and vote for the party that is closes to your own ideology = therefore its your own personal choice (not automatically!!!)

What are the 2 dimensions in the spacial model of voting?

1) economic dimension

left - right

2) cultural dimension

libertarian/progressive - authoritarian/conservative

Is there empirical evidence for ideology and the spatial model affecting voting behavior?

- voters stay roughly in the same ideological area but they might switch to another party in that same space

- ideology matters to some extent (left or right) but within these areas there is quite some change!! = the theory is correct to a certain extent

In theory, how does performance of government affect voting behavior?

(rational model)

- you look at the government and ask yourself "did the government do a good job?"
- yes --> you vote for the gov
- no --> you vote for the opposition
- rational model cause you made your own judgement

What does it mean when it says 'incumbent government'?

= government that is currently active in office

Limits of this rational model? (2)

(gov. performance --> voting behavior)

1) Who do you attribute it to when there is succes or mistakes?
2) Is the government responsible for conditions that are beyond their control (e.g. covid)?

In theory, how do party leader characteristics shape voting behavior?

voters base their choice on the attractiveness of the party leader instead of on the attractiveness of the party

How do you study the causal theory of party leader characteristics shaping voting behavior empirically?

if the candidate is rated higher than the party and then they choose that party, its the candidate --> in this case party leader characteristics shape voting behavior!

if the candidate is rated lower than the party and they vote for the party, its the party itself

What is and is not important about the candidate?

not: appearance and likability (like you would assume)

is: perception of competence and integrity & things that matter for the government

When talking about election rules, what do the scope and franchise dictate?

1) Scope

- for what can you actually vote as a voter?

- In NL you can vote for: tweede kamer, waterschappen, provinciale staten, European Parliament

- in USA you can vote for: local offices, eternal general, public prosecutor, school board, governors, judges --> you can vote not only for parliament but also for the executive judiciary

- elective principle (USA) vs appointive principle (NL)

2) Franchise

- Who is allowed to vote?

- Who isn't?

a) people without citizenship

b) people under a certain age (varies from country to country)

in NL = 18, in germany = 16, in greece = 17

c) people in prison

What are the 3 electoral systems?

1) proportionality system

2) single member plurality system

3) majority system

How does the proportionality system work?

1) most common electoral system!

2) share of votes translates proportionally into seats in parliament

3) there might be a electoral thresholds (kiesdrempel)

a) NL doesn't have one

b) Germany has one of 5%, Turkey of 7% etc.

- the higher the electoral threshold --> the less proportionate

This is because a higher threshold means that smaller parties are less likely to win seats, leading to a concentration of representation among larger parties and potentially distorting the proportionality of votes to seats.

What kind of parties benefit from a proportional system? (2)

1) small parties
2) parties with similar level of support across the country

Proportional systems typically lead to... (a certain type of party)

... more ideologically narrow/cohesive parties

How does the single member plurality system work?

who does it benefit and who is at a disadvantage?

1) country is divided into districts which are roughly proportional to the population and each district has one single member that eventually gets into parliament

2) only the candidate in the district with the most votes gets into parliament

3) you do not need the majority of the votes --> you only need more votes than the other candidates = plurality (you have the most)

- benefits the largest party

- disadvantage for small parties --> you only get seats if you have the most votes in a district, therefore it is difficult for small parties to get votes

e.g. UK

How does the majority system work?

- (50% + 1 vote) of votes

- second round if there is no majority in the first round

- the two candidates with most voters in the 1st round compete in the 2nd round

e.g. Brazil and France

What kind of parties benefit from plurality and majority systems? (2)

1) large parties
2) regionally concentrated parties

Plurality and majority systems typically lead to... (a certain kind of party)

... fewer, ideologically internally diverse parties

What kind of system does the UK have?

a single member plurality system!

What kind of electoral system do we have in the Netherlands?

a proportional system!

Why are election rules very important?

because they dictate who gets to be in parliament!