Complete CDI flashcards

:)

Mixed Government

= political system in which power and authority are divided and shared among various institutions, often combining both supranational and intergovernmental elements, as seen in the European Union (EU).

can the EU be considered a mixed government, if so, why

1. Supranational and Intergovernmental Elements: The EU combines both supranational and intergovernmental features.

   1. Supranational: The European Commission is supranational, as it represents the interests of the EU as a whole and is responsible for proposing legislation.

   2. Intergovernmental: The European Council and the Council of the EU involve member states' leaders and governments, making decisions collectively.

2. Parliamentary Component: The European Parliament is elected by EU citizens and plays a key role in shaping legislation, providing a more democratic element.

3. Judicial Component: The European Court of Justice interprets EU law, ensuring uniform application across member states.

4. Federal vs. Confederal Aspects: The EU is often seen as a federal entity with its own laws and institutions, but it retains elements of confederalism, where member states retain significant sovereignty.

5. Examples:

   • The European Parliament passes laws, representing the EU's citizens.

   • The European Commission proposes legislation and monitors member state compliance.

   • The European Council, consisting of member state leaders, sets the EU's overall political direction.

   • The Council of the EU, comprising national ministers, decides on legislation and policy.

   • The European Court of Justice ensures the uniform interpretation and application of EU law.

6. Shared Sovereignty: Member states delegate some sovereignty to the EU, particularly in areas like trade, competition policy, and the single market.

   1. people and the member states

7. Complex Decision-Making: Decision-making involves negotiations, compromises, and a balance between national interests and the EU's collective interest.

benefits of a mixed governmental approach in the EU

• Promotes Cooperation

  • Member states can work together to find common solutions.

• Respects Diversity

  • It respects the diversity of national perspectives.

• Facilitates Compromise

  • Enables compromise and cooperation.

• Promotes Peace

  • Contributes to peace and stability in a historically conflict-prone region.

executive tasks/ institutions in the EU

• European Commission:

  • Acts as the EU's executive branch, proposing legislation, implementing policies, and managing the day-to-day affairs of the EU.

• Council of the EU:

  • Represents member states and makes executive decisions on various policy areas, including foreign affairs and economic coordination.

• European Council:

  • Provides political direction and sets strategic priorities for the EU.

legislative tasks/ institutions in the EU

• European Parliament:

  • Represents EU citizens and co-decides on EU legislation, ensuring democratic input into the lawmaking process.

• Council of the EU:

  • Participates in the legislative process, working with the Parliament to adopt and amend legislation.

• ECB:

  • Implements legislature concerning the Euro and a supervision of major banks

• European Commission:

  • Initiates legislation by proposing new laws and regulations.

    • has the monopoly on initiating legislation

Balancing institutions and logics in the ordinary legislative procedure

trilogue for legislative decision-making

how could you make the eu more political

• Strengthen Political Parties:

  • Encourage the development of EU-level political parties

    • that are more ideologically distinct and have a stronger presence in the EP

      → This can enhance political competition and engagement.

• Transnational Lists:

  • Introduce transnational lists for a portion of EP seats, allowing voters to directly choose MEPs from pan-European candidate lists.

    → This can foster a stronger sense of European identity and political discourse.

• Enhance the EP's Powers:

  • Grant the EP more legislative and oversight powers, giving it a more significant role in shaping EU policies

  → thereby making EU politics more prominent and influential.

• Common Electoral Procedures:

  • Promote more commonality in electoral procedures across member states

    • to ensure consistency and facilitate cross-border voting.

what can be done to address the eu’s democratic deficit

• Direct Elections of EU Leadership:

  • Allow EU citizens to directly elect key EU leadership positions, such as the President of the European Commission,

    • to increase accountability and engagement.

• Transparency and Accessibility:

  • Enhance transparency in decision-making processes and make EU institutions more accessible to the public

    • to build trust and engagement.

• National Parliaments' Role:

  • Strengthen the role of national parliaments in EU affairs

    • ensuring closer connections between national and EU-level governance.

how can the european parliament become more representative

• Proportional Representation:

  • Implement a proportional representation electoral system for EP elections

    • can ensure a more accurate reflection of voters' preferences.

• Lowering Electoral Thresholds:

  • Lower the electoral thresholds for smaller parties to promote diversity in the EP and prevent the dominance of larger, mainstream parties.

• Intra-Party Democracy:

  • Encourage more intra-party democracy within national political parties

    • to allow voters to influence candidate selection and party platforms.

• Gender Parity:

  • Promote gender parity in EP representation

    • through quota systems or other mechanisms

      • to ensure a more balanced and representative assembly.

• Youth Engagement:

  • Develop strategies to engage and represent the younger population more effectively (as they are often underrepresented in traditional party systems).

• Citizen Initiatives:

  • Explore mechanisms for citizens to propose and influence EU legislation directly

    • providing a more direct link between citizens and EU governance.

tasks of the council of the EU

the council has both legislative and executive tasks

legislative:

• acts as one of the EU’s two legislative chambers

• represents the interests of member states

• concludes international agreements with third countries and international bodies

executive:

• responsible for the EU’s external relations through the CFSP (= Common Foreign and Security Policy)

• can take operational measures (e.g. send military missions/ police/ etc.)

• makes decisions about new member states

difference council of the eu and european council

European Council:

• Composed of EU heads of state or government.

• Sets the EU's political agenda and provides general policy direction.

Council of the EU (Council of Ministers):

• Composed of relevant ministers from EU member states (e.g., foreign ministers, finance ministers).

• Responsible for making and implementing EU laws.

The Council has both executive and legislative powers- explain what risks or advantages this could have for the functioning of the EU.

Advantages:

• Efficiency:

  • Streamlines decision-making by combining executive and legislative functions in one institution.

• Coherence:

  • Ensures coordination between policy development and implementation.

• Faster Responses:

  • Allows for quicker responses to crises and emerging issues.

• Accountability:

  • Enhances accountability as it represents member state governments directly.

Risks:

• Lack of Separation:

  • May lack the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers, potentially concentrating too much authority.

• Opaque Decision-Making:

  • Can lead to less transparent decision-making processes, reducing public scrutiny.

• National Interests:

  • May prioritize national interests over EU-wide interests, potentially hindering integration.

• Democratic Deficit:

  • Raises concerns about a democratic deficit due to limited direct citizen influence.

what institution does the ep scrutinise (which powers does it have, over whom)

the EP has no power over the european council and the council of the eu

• only power over supranational institutions

• no power over intergovernmental institutions

benefits and drawbacks of how the executive is scrutinized in parliamentary systems

Benefits:

1. Direct Voter Accountability: The executive is directly accountable to the national parliament, which is elected by citizens, ensuring a strong link between voters and the government.

2. Efficiency: Oversight is often more streamlined, as there is a single national parliament responsible for scrutiny.

3. Homogeneous Accountability: The accountability structure is more coherent, as the national parliament represents a single country.

Drawbacks:

1. Limited to National Focus: The focus is primarily on national affairs, potentially overlooking important regional or global issues.

2. Potential for Dominance: The executive, once in power, can dominate the legislature, reducing the separation of powers.

3. Limited Coordination: Coordination among different national parliaments on EU-related matters can be challenging, potentially leading to inefficiencies.

benefits and drawbacks of how the executive is scrutinized in the eu

Benefits:

1. Supranational Perspective: Scrutiny encompasses a broader supranational perspective, addressing issues that transcend individual nations.

2. Complex Oversight: Multiple layers of scrutiny offer a more comprehensive examination of EU executive activities.

3. Checks and Balances: The complex system of oversight and the separation of powers within the EU can reduce the risk of an overly powerful executive.

Drawbacks:

1. Indirect Voter Influence: EU citizens have indirect influence over the appointment of the Commission, potentially leading to a perceived democratic deficit.

2. Complexity: The multi-tiered system of scrutiny can be complex, making it less transparent and understandable for the average citizen.

3. Potential for Confusion: Overlapping responsibilities among various oversight bodies can lead to conflicts and confusion in decision-making.

(political) logics within the eu

considerations	logic	institutions
efficiency	technocratic	european commission & court of justice
member state control	diplomatic	council & EUCO
democratic legitimacy	representative	european parliament

the EU’s institutions

QMV = qualified majority voting - how does it work

• At least 55% of member states

• Representing at least 65% of the EU population

• A blocking minority needs to contain at least four member states

characteristic and example of ‘second order elections’

• Lower turnout

• Large parties lose

• Governing parties lose

→ example: elections for EP

is the EU a political system?

✓ Clearly defined set of institutions

✓ Citizens seek to achieve their political desires through the political system

✓ Collective decisions have impact on distribution of resources and allocation of values

✓ Continuous interaction between political outputs, new demands on the system, new decisions…

what type of political system is the EU?

Consensual

→ but with specific features

Intergovernmentalism + EU integration

Driven by: The member-states

Logic: The architecture and political actions of the European Union depend on member state preferences

Explanation for integration: It began and continues because member states have a good collective reason to hand over power to the EU level

Challenges with this approach: European Parliament’s increase in power

Neo-functionalism+ Integration in the EU

Driven by: underlying domestic social and political forces that are not fully in member state control

Explanation for integration: Spillover effect – integration in one very specific policy will quasi-automatically lead to integration in others because further steps of integration will be needed to reach the originally envisaged goal.

E.g. A common market for coal and steel will work better if there is a common market for other goods and services

Challenge: Struggles to explain the larger leaps in integration and economic forces alone are not sufficient for states to take major integration steps

Supranationalism + EU Integration

Driven by/ focuses on: non-state actors e.g. interest groups and the EU institutions themselves.

Example: Commission and EU establishing doctrines of direct effect and supremacy of EU law, quasi-federal legal framework, beyond the intentions of early treaty signatories. Rise of the EP and interpretation of the decision-making rules of the EU that has maximised its influence.

Critique = it struggles to explain:

• Why European Integration has repeatedly stopped or paused through the history of the EU

• Disintegration and Brexit

David Easton’s concept of Political System

what is a state

• monopoly of legitimate violence (war makes states and states make war)

• territory

• sovereignty

some also include

• plurality (or ‘anarchy’ in international relations)

• a certain relation (‘regime’) between:

  • political elite and state institutions, on the one hand

  • and population and citizens, on the other

    → leads to: administrative legal order (constitutions, laws, rights, policies, etc.)

what is a nation state

• Monopoly of legitimate violence

• Territory

• Sovereignty

but also:
Political community

• Citizenship

  • Legal relationship subject – state

  • Equality before the law

• Nationhood

  • From: blood

  • To: “an imagined political community” (Benedict Anderson 1991: 6)

Westphalian order: Peace of Westphalia (1648)

• Each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs

• No interference in other states’ internal affairs

• Equality among states in international law

failed states (and examples)

• impaired state like entities

  • weak, competing, or non-existing governments

  • not exactly sovereign in practice, weak regime acceptance

  • cannot exercise rule over their inhabitants

    • examples: chad, somalia, libya, sudan (all unable to control inhabitants across their territory)

→ no security (due to no monopoly on violence)

→ no legitimacy

indicators of fragile states

• fractionalised elites

• weak economy

• immigration

autocratic regimes

• have no (or hardly any) executive turnover

• are therefore non-polyarchies

• fully authoritarian regimes have been in decline over time

  → BUT: authoritarian can be remarkably durable

what keeps authoritarian leaders in place

• repression

• building legitimacy

  • to be able to calculate their opposition’s moves

  • want to seem as a ‘good’ regime

  • education policies/ propaganda

• co-opting groups/ elites

  • can backfire when the regime misjudges the strength of the opposition

  • creating the illusion of power and influence

    • getting them on their side

• elections

  • gives them legitimacy

  • can handpick the opposition with a huge electoral victory - seems as though they have the public’s support

• international relations

  • no intervention/ interference from others to keep international peace

Robert Dahl’s view on democracy

• two dimensions:

  1. contestation

     1. procedures of democratic competition

  2. inclusion

     1. who has the right to participate in politics

minimalist view

minimalist view of regime type

• Institutions and procedures matter, not the outcomes

• Focus on electoral contestations for political office

substantive view of regime type

includes minimalist view and adds:

• outcomes as a forms of classification

  • includes outcomes in terms of values

    • e.g. freedom, rights, …

(as in David Easton’s complete model)

measures of democracy

1. DD (democratic-dictatorships measure)

2. polity IV

3. freedom house

DD (democratic-dictatorships measure)

minimalist

dichotomous

four criteria of classification:

1. the chief executive is elected

2. the legislature is elected

3. There is more than one party competing in the elections

   a. Ex ante uncertainty

   b. Ex post irreversibility

   c. Repeatability

4. An alternation in power under identical electoral rules has taken place

polity IV

minimalist

continuous

(democracies are classified from a minimum of -10 (as autocratic or dictatorial as possible) to a maximum of 10 (as democratic as possible))

A country’s polity score is based on five attributes:

1. The competitiveness of executive recruitment

2. The openness of executive recruitment

3. The constraints that exist on the executive

4. The regulation of political participation

5. The competitiveness of political participation

number 3 is special because it wasn’t mentioned by Dahl and introduces checks and balances

freedom house

substantive

continuous

measures a country’s freedom based on two dimensions:

1. a country’s level of civil rights (15 questions)

   • four sub-categories:

   1. freedom of expression and belief

   2. associational and organizational rights

   3. rule of law

   4. personal autonomy and individual rights

2. a country’s level of political rights (10 questions)

   • three sub-categories

   1. electoral process

   2. political pluralism and participation

   3. functioning of government

type of conceptualisations of regime types

dichotomous and continuous

dichotomous conceptualisation

a dichotomous view examines dictatorships and democracies separately

→ there are two discrete categories

• people using this think that it is impossible/ senseless for a country to be equally dictatorial and democratic, as it would be possible in the continuous view

• they also believe that countries with uncontested political offices (china, north korea) should not be considered partly democratic at all

(example of pregnancies - either pregnant or not)

binary → either/ or

continuous conceptualisation

• in a continuous view, one assumes that there is only one range between more dictatorial and more democratic

→ intermediate value

• many people believe that politics: “democracy is always a matter of degree” (Bollen and Jackman, 1989:618)

interval/ scale → more/ less

what makes indicators or measures more desirable than others in research?

• validity

• transparency

• reliability

validity

= the extend in which our measures reflect the concepts they are intended to correspond to

in minimalist measures (polity IV and DD):

• do not capture everything

in substantive measures (freedom house):

• too many attributes with which one can’t come to a clear conclusion/ finding

transparency

⇒ replicability of the process by a third party

DD and polity IV are easier to replicate

freedom house doesn’t show their process/ coding rules → makes replication difficult

reliability

= the extent in which measurements can be repeated and produce the same outcome, even when conducted by third parties

DD is the more reliable measure

polity IV and freedom house rely on subjective judgements

modernisation theory

→ predicts that democracy is more likely to emerge and survive as countries develop and become richer

(both: more likely to survive in wealth and more likely to become democratic, if not yet, through wealth)

survival theory

→ predicts that democracy is more likely to survive as countries develop and become richer but not more likely to emerge

difference between elections of head of government and legislature in parliamentary vs presidential systems

1. parliamentary

   1. indirect elections of chief executive

   2. citizens vote to elect members of the legislature (parliament)

   3. the parliament then chooses the head of government (prime minister or chancellor)

2. presidential

   1. popular election of chief executive

   2. separate electoral process to elect members of legislature (congress) and head of government (president)

difference of the separation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative in parliamentary vs presidential systems

1. parliamentary

   1. limited separation of power

   2. prime minister and other ministers are also members of the parliament

2. presidential

   1. clear separation of power

   2. president and members of parliament are not members of congress

difference of the roles of head of government and head of state in parliamentary vs presidential systems

1. parliamentary

   1. clear separation between heads of government and state

   2. the elected prime minister commands the administration

   3. presidents are politically weak figures

2. presidential

   1. no separation between head of state and head of government

   2. elected president plays role of head of government and that of state simultaneously

difference in the timing of elections presidential vs parliamentary systems

1. parliamentary

   1. flexible terms in office - mandated at certain intervals but can occur earlier

   2. minister can call for dissolution of parliament

   3. vote of no confidence

2. presidential

   1. fixed terms in office

   2. president has no power to dissolve congress and congress cannot issue a vote of no confidence

what is meant by semi-presidentialism

• institutional arrangements that blend elements of parliamentarism and presidentialism

  • elections: directly elected president

  • separation of power: prime minister is responsible to parliament

  • roles of heads of government and state: varies

  • timing of elections: no fixed term (dissolution or vote of no confidence)

• hybrid constitutions = part parliamentary and part presidential

describe the key differences between majoritarian and consensual systems

	majoritarian	consensus
electoral system’s representation	disproportional	proportional
party system	two-party	multi-party
government	single-party	coalitions
interbranch balance	executive dominance	balanced power
interest representation	pluralism	corporatism
local government	unitary	federal
legislature	unicameral	bicameral (regional minorities represented in parliament - senate)
constitution	flexible	rigid
judiciary	weak/ no judicial review	strong judicial review
central bank	dependent on executive	independent
optimal for:	homogeneous societies	plural societies

what are the two political systems described by Lijphart

majoritarian and consensus

majoritarian = Majoritarian democracy is a form of democracy based upon majority rule of a polity's citizens.

consensus = Consensus decision-making or consensus process (often abbreviated to consensus) are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all.

main advantages and disadvantages of the majoritarian system

• advantages

  • very decisive: quick and effective policy making

  • higher accountability to voters

    • easier to hold a one-party government accountable

    • clarity of responsibility

• disadvantages

  • potentially volatile

main advantages and disadvantages of the consensual system

• advantages

  • very resolute: agree on major politics and sustain them on basis of broad agreements

• disadvantages

  • too many parties can lead to political unrest

    • protest votes

how does tsebelis’ theory add to the debate of political systems

institutions that design ‘veto players’ by empowering minorities encourage policy paralysis but also checks and balances

which of his two political systems does lijphart prefer

• consensus democracies perform equally as well (if not better) when considering:

  • macroeconomic outcomes

  • social unrest

  • voter turnout

  • women’s participation

what is meant by ‘the principle of presidential government’

• it means putting all executive power (for a certain time) on one political actor (a directly elected politician)

  • a ‘one-person executive’

  • the president is sovereign

difference between federalism and multilevel governance

• federalism

  • the centre cannot change the structure unilaterally

    • this dual sovereignty is protected by the constitution

• multilevel governance

  • from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments

  • the decentralisation within multi-level governments does not exclusively take place in within states

  • all levels of subnational governance are seen as ‘other’

    • there is no distinction between regional and local governments

  • it transcends the divide between federal and unitary governments:

    • shows, that unitary governments can have multiple levels of government (regional assemblies/ executives)

federal government

• from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments

→ the centre cannot change the structure unilaterally

→ this dual sovereignty is protected by the constitution

multi-level governance

→ from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments

→ the decentralisation within multi-level governments does not exclusively take place in within states

→ all levels of subnational governance are seen as ‘other’

• there is no distinction between regional and local governments

→ it transcends the divide between federal and unitary governments:

• shows, that unitary governments can have multiple levels of government (regional assemblies/ executives)

name the five drivers of multilevel governance

1. ethno-territorial identity

2. democracy

3. interdependence

4. affluence (wealth)

5. peace

what is Strøm’s theory

agency theory

• principal = one that entrusts the task/ responsibility of representation in the agent (ultimate principal is the voter)

  • that is because they might be less qualified to make political decisions on a large scale, but still want their opinion to be carried out by someone that has this ability

• agent = the one acting on behalf of (and being checked by) the principal (and their wishes/ expectations)

  • an agent has accountability towards their principal

what agency problems exist

adverse selection and moral hazard

adverse selection

• the problem arises through hidden information

  • could be solved by being more accessible and spreading more information about an agent’s goals

  • parties work as a great screening device for an agent also has to follow their party’s ideology → can be observed and acted accordingly on the principal’s side

  • strong screening devices (ex ante)

→ agency theory

moral hazard

• the problem arises through hidden action (and hidden information)

  • could be solved by granting more insight for principals into political decision-making processes to see who was promoting which ideas and what actions the agents take

  • ex post sanctions and monitoring

  • easier for presidential systems with competition and containment

→ agency theory

caramani’s arguments for or against presidential democracies

characteristics of presidentialism	advantages (Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart)	disadvantages (Juan Linz)
head of government is elected by popular election	voters have greater choice	‘winner-takes-all’ elections → political polarisation
president is heads of state and government	voters have more clarity on who controls the executive → better government accountability	president might adopt ‘plebiscitarian’ style → might dismiss all criticism
president and legislators have fixed terms in office	legislators do not fear dissolution of parliament → have greater independence	disagreements can lead to “executive-legislative deadlock/ paralysis” → dual legitimacy

what aspects is Strøm’s political system based on

1. representation

2. delegation

3. accountability

what are ways to respond to agency problems

ex ante (before entering the agreement)

1. contract design

2. screening and selection mechanisms

   • political parties

ex post (after entering the agreement)

1. monitoring and reporting requirements

2. institutional checks

   • veto players

• because presidential systems have competing agents, adverse selection is less of a problem

• higher chance of adverse selection in parliamentary systems due to a possible weak link

how do we call problems between agent and principal

agency loss

steps to determine whether a country is presidential or parliamentary

1. Does a country have a directly elected President?

   1. NO: parliamentary system

   2. YES: presidential or semi-presidential system

2. Does government depend on parliament for its own survival?

   1. NO: presidential system

   2. YES: semi-presidential system

how is deadlock created

• multiple veto-players

  • the more veto player, the higher likelihood of deadlock

  • no automatic majority support for government/ president

    • because separate elections

    • (even if on the same date: split-ticket voting)

  • president may also veto decisions from the parliament

    • can veto everything or specific articles/ lines in the text

breaking a deadlock

• negotiate a compromise

• president might ‘buy the support’ of a potential dissenters in parliament

  • pork-barrel politics in single-member constituencies

• getting out of each other’s way

  • president may use their discretionary powers (=bypass parliament)

  • parliament might decide to create independent agencies, not under presidential control

issues with parliamentary governments

• Government depends on parliamentary majority, but in practice government is dominant over parliament

  • Ministers drive legislative process; government parties’ MPs vote in favour

  • Party leadership and prominent politicians join government

    • Prestige ‘office’

    • Risk of governing (‘incumbency cost’: likely loss of votes at the next election)

• Power of the prime minister

  • Can’t always control other coalition party’s ministers

  • presidentialisation = power of pm is increasing - esp in campaigns (dominated by personality)

  the running pm from the coalition party can decide on changing their views to be more successful in the next election

⇒ issues of cooperation!

types of parliamentary governments (and places of conflict)

• single-party governments

  → conflicts mostly within the party

• coalition governments

  → conflicts between coalition parties

types of coalition governments

• majority coalition (at least 50% of seats in parliament +1)

• minimal-winning coalition

  • all parties in coalition needed for majority

  • most coalitions are minimal winning

• oversized/ surplus majority government

  • include more parties than necessary for having majority

    • weak position of the superfluous smaller party

  • can be convenient in case of

    • Constitutional reform (supermajorities are necessary)

    • Representing communities in case of internal tensions

    • Continuation of an existing successful coalition (from a previous government)

• minority coalition

  • does not have the majority in parliament

    • might be impossible to create a majority coalition

    • can be a phase between two majority gov,

    • can be a more regular occurrence in a particular country (norway)

  • how can they survive

    • making deals with different opposition parties

    • ensuring there is no majority against them

    • occupy the centre (the median legislator)

shows the ideal type of a majoritarian system

very oppositional

• normally one-party majority government

• government - parliament: weak opposition

• strong wings within parties

  • disagreements stay within the parties

• no written constitution

• de facto unicameral

  • weak house of lords

  • strong house of commons

→ pendulum swing

e.g. UK

ideal type consensus government

• coalition governments (sometimes even minority government)

• government- parliament: strong opposition in parliament

• proportional electoral system

• bicameral

e.g. NL

• “the dispersion of authority to jurisdictions within or beyond the state”

→ is it a hollowing out of the state?

• national level: politics without policy?

• regions and eu: policy without politics?

why choose a multilevel government

• functionalist:

  • structure of authority reflects that each policy has its optimal spatial scale

• economic:

  • jurisdictional design reflects economic self-interest on the part of rulers, groups, and voters

• identity:

  • territorial identity and the demand for self-rule shape the structure of governance

why choose a unitary state

• unitary states can and do increasingly empower lower levels

  • because it is functional (economies of scale)

  • And/or due to strong regional identities/demands for self-rule

  • But they can always centralize power again unilaterally (UK & devolution)

why choose a federal state

1. Smaller states join forces, but want to keep some autonomy/ a clear political identity a) Confederation: central state and all sub-states have their own constitutions b) Federation: one constitution

2. It adds veto players: More checks and balances between levels of government protect citizens from tyranny

3. Granting autonomy to territorially concentrated groups may reduce conflicts (in unitary states this may lead to self-rule)

prospective voting

• = an election allowing the voter to be forward looking and think about what they expect the government to do

  • delegation → who does the ultimate principal delegate their authority to (who do they choose for their own representation)

  • representation

  • (ex ante)

retrospective voting

• = an election allowing the voter to evaluate the performance of the incumbent government

  • accountability

  • representation

  • (ex post)

main differences between single member plurality (SMP) and proportional representation (PR) systems

Aspect	Single-Member Plurality (SMP)	Proportional Representation (PR)
Seat Allocation	Winner-takes-all in each constituency. Each constituency elects one representative.	Multiple representatives are elected from larger, multi-member constituencies based on the overall vote share.
Representation	Tends to produce concentrated representation, often favoring two major parties.	Tends to produce diverse and proportional representation, allowing smaller parties to win seats.
Wasted Votes	Many wasted votes for losing candidates or beyond what the winner needs are wasted.	Fewer wasted votes because all votes contribute to seat allocation based on party vote share.
Coalition Governments	Less common because a single party often secures a majority of seats.	More likely because no single party usually wins an outright majority. Coalition formation is common.
Voter Choices	Voters typically vote for a candidate representing their geographic constituency.	Voters often vote for a political party, focusing on party platforms and policies.

advantages and disadvantages of SMP

• SMP

  • advantages:

    • simplicity → voter only votes one candidate

    • strong local representation → every constituency has its own representative (positive connection between constituency and elected candidate)

      • accountability

    • stability → majority governments with a single party in power can lead to increased stability and quick decision making

  • disadvantages:

    • many wasted votes

      • encourages strategic voting behaviour (not true preference)

    • lack of proportional representation → tend to under-represent smaller parties, favours larger parties

    • limited voter choice → often between two parties/ candidates

    • might lead to local interests dominating national politics (counteracted through party discipline)

advantages and disadvantages PR

• advantages:

  • proportional representation

    • better representation of minorities

  • diverse representation

    • opposition parties are more influential → alternation of coalitions

  • reduced wasted votes

    • → less strategic voting

  • higher turnout

• disadvantages:

  • complexity

  • possibility of political fragmentation → easier for splinter parties/ small parties to get into government

  • coalition politics → slower decision making and less accountability

  • weak constituency link → the voter doesn’t vote a candidate to represent them, they are chosen by their party

    • difficult to hold politicians accountable

effect of a threshold (e.g. 5%)

it can:

• limit the amount of small/ splinter parties in government → fragmentation

  • higher stability

  • less extreme views → more moderate legislature

  • might encourage strategic voting

  • limits the representation of minorities’ views

  • leads to more effective government → quicker decision-making

effect of increasing district magnitude

it might

• increase proportionality

• favour smaller parties

• reduce wasted votes

• weaken the link between voters and representatives

gerrymandering

= with the aim of creating an electoral advantage, the borders/ boundaries of districts are changed/ manipulated (mostly in SMP systems)

malapportionment

= when the ratio of citizens within a district and the seats allocated to them is higher in some districts in comparison to others (often, rural areas are overrepresented)

are gerrymandering and malapportionment always a bad thing

• gerrymandering mostly happens in the context of dishonest/ malicious (sounds weird) intentions

  • can be good to represent minorities

• malapportionment is not necessarily something that is meant to be unfair → if there is a large region that is not densely populated, they might not be represented in government at all if one only looks at the ratio

  • it is a difficult debate within these decisions

  • it is often unintended

Duverger’s ‘Laws’ (1954)

1. law: the majority [plurality] single-ballot system/ electoral system leads to a two-party system

• a country using a system, in which the candidate with the most votes in each area wins (e.g. UK or USA), mostly only has two competing parties

  • voters often feel encouraged to vote for one of the two major parties to make their vote count

• only if the parties are ‘nationalised’

  2. law: proportional representation/ electoral system leads to a multi-party system

• a country using a system, in which seats are allocated proportionally mostly results in a multi-party system

  • smaller parties can win seats without having the majority, so more people vote for them

why are duverger’s laws true (esp. 2nd)

• mechanical effects

• psychological effects

  • strategic voting

  • small parties might not run if they have no chance of winning

descriptive representation (Pitkin)

= instead of acting on behalf of other, descriptive representation describes standing for someone

• this can be through demographic resemblance (e.g. gender, ethnic origin, religion, …)

substantive representation (Pitkin)

= about acting on behalf of someone else

• more about the outcomes

how can substantive representation be evaluated

1. disproportionality = degree of mismatch between seat and vote shares regarding one party

   1. higher in majoritarian democracy

   2. decreases with district magnitude

   3. increases with legal threshold

2. vote-seat equality across voters = the direction/ trends/ patterns of disproportionality

   1. conservative voters are often overrepresented

3. ideological congruence = observing voter’s positions and those of their leaders

   1. often measure through the median on a left-right or liberal-conservative scale

why are elections important

→ forms a link between the people and their representatives.

• They are the primary means through which citizens can:

  • Select representatives and government (prospective voting)

  • Punish incumbents (retrospective voting)

  • Influence policy

    • Vote for change

    • Vote for the status quo