Transcript Are parties in

POSC 1000 Introduction to
Politics
Unit Seven:
Elections and Political
Parties (Part Two)
Russell Alan Williams
Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties
“Political Parties”
Required Reading: Maclean and Wood, Chap. 7.
Outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
Types of Parties
Party Organization and Campaigns
Party Systems
• Ideological Competition
• Structure of Competition
1) Introduction:
“Political Parties”: Organizations that seek to
gain and maintain political power
Play central role in competition for electoral office
Members fill positions in legislature
Members form executive/governments
Members raise $$$$ for campaigns
Often no “constitutional” role & limited regulation
Traditional functions:
Recruit candidates and voters to participate in system
– the “Recruitment Function”
Support new candidates
Ensure voter turnout
“Organize the vote” – “Electoral Platforms” Parties
take stands on different issues – these platforms are
like a “menu” for voters to choose from
Ensure government accountability – meaning ?????
People can clearly vote against “the government” by voting
against that party – this doesn't work well without parties
Commonly seen as harmful to
democracy?
Purveyors of corruption and
“Patronage”: Awarding of key
government positions to loyal
party supporters.
=Controversy!
Impede the “will of the people”
= undermine accountability
=Controversy!
=Theme: Are parties in
“crisis”?
2) Types of Parties:
“Cadre Party”: Party formed by elite group of
politicians in attempt to control legislature
Oldest form – emerged from cooperation amongst a
parliamentary party “caucus” – the organization of
party members in parliament
• E.g. the British “Whigs” and “Tories”
Unclear link between party officials and the public –
no “mass membership”
“Mass Party”: Large parties organized based on
regular financial contributions from the public –
power comes from membership.
Less focus on elected members – more emphasis on
the Extra-parliamentary Party
=”rank and file” or “grassroots” members
Party Convention: Regular meeting of delegates
from local constituencies as well as elected
representatives and party officials.
E.g.
British Labour Party
German Social Democratic Party
Key differences:
Mass parties are “ideological”
Mass parties – ordinary members choose leaders
Challenges:
Can a cadre party survive consistent defeats?
•
Where are the “Whigs” today?????
Can a mass party maintain links to the public?
• Belief that over time all organizations are
gradually dominated by small group of leaders
New forms of parties:
“Umbrella” or “Catch-all Parties”: Dominant concern is
winning elections. Parties try to appeal to a wide range of
issues . . . Less ideological.
Relies on $$$$$ and professional experts to “market”
the party to voters
• Implication: Focus on leaders & style over ideology
Reasons for emergence?
•
“Hot dog stand theory” – modern parties “move to the
centre” . . . . Ideology only costs you some voters . . . so .
. . you should abandon clear stances for broad appeal
Problem: Are parties fufilling their role if we choose
based on the qualities of the leaders etc.??????
Other types of parties:
Brokerage Party: Party that tries to appeal to broad
elements of society by accommodating interests of
different groups and regions through deal-making
Promise benefits to different groups
Canadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special
interests
Examples?
Other types of parties:
Brokerage Party: Party that tries to appeal to broad
elements of society by accommodating interests of
different groups through deal-making
Promise benefits to different groups
Canadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special
interests
Examples?
=The Liberal Party of Canada
3) Party Organization and Campaigns:
Leadership: In most systems, parties choose the
head of government by selecting own leader
Methods:
• Parliamentary party election
–Becoming less popular
• Party convention election - delegates from
constituencies choose leader through “run off” ballots
–“Public spectacle” is popular
• Direct membership votes - all party members vote
–U.S. Presidential “primaries”
–Electronic voting – Problem: leader may not win
majority – makes system complicated
Local candidate selection - Either by:
Local “constituency association”
Party leader
• “Parachute candidates” – party insiders and “star”
recruits
Party nomination is key!
• “Independents”: Electoral candidates that do not
belong to a party - do not get elected in most
systems = lonely loooosers
• In SMP, party candidate selection (nomination
battles) often more important than elections . . .
–E.g. “safe seats”
Party “Caucus”: Organization/meeting of all the party’s
parliamentary members
Closed meetings to discuss strategy
Ensures “party discipline”
• Members vote the “party line” or they must leave
caucus
=No party support in next election
• Big difference between Canada and US
Dominance of leader over caucus can lead to executive
dominance in parliamentary system
Party Finance:
High risk of corruption and inequality = Costs almost $1
billion (US) to run for President
Most countries regulate how parties solicit funds
• Results of regulation uneven (E.g. U.S. rules)
In Canada:
• Pre 2004 – Public reporting, but no limits on $$$
amount from corporations and individuals
–Benefited Liberals and Conservatives
• Post 2004 – Corporate donations capped at
$1000.00, individuals at $5,000.00
–Parties receive gov’t funding = $1.75 for each vote
• Now?
Parties and the vote – why do people vote the way
they do?
a) Ideological and social factors . . .
b) Party Identification: long term psychological
attachment to a particular party
• E.g. Best predictor of which party someone will vote for is who they
voted for in the past
Elections mainly about “swing voters” or “independents”
Modern parties choose issues to attract swing voters
They also choose some issues to “protect their base” . . . .
c) Campaign dynamics:
The “local team” may have a particular impact
“Electoral platforms” may make promises of particular
interest to some voters
What issues become important?
• E.g. Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton
d) The role of leaders – how leaders appear to the public is
crucial:
The Howard Dean scream: “B’YEEEEH!” Link
The Ignatieff “rise up” speech. Link
e) The role of “negative campaigning” and “Attack adds”:
Adds that attack other candidates rather than appeal to
voters
4) Party Systems:
“Party Systems”: Pattern of competition amongst
parties in different jurisdictions
“One Party System”: A system in which only one
party is allowed to participate = not very democratic
E.g. “Militia Party”: A common style of one party state,
where military elite dominates only recognized party
“Competitive Party System”: Liberal democratic
political system where citizens can join and organize
different parties
In “Competitive Party Systems”the “structure” of
competition amongst parties has big impacts on
government . . .
a) Structure of ideological competition
”Left-Right continuum” – common way to think
about party completion
If parties are ideological, number of parties can really
impact electoral outcomes . . .
E.g. What if the “left” or “right” is split?
Where do nationalist/regional parties fit?
Where do brokerage and Catch-all parties fit?
b) Structure of party competition:
Depends on relevant number of effective parties
And,
Relative success of those parties
One Party Dominant: One dominant party, no
“government in waiting”
Japan, Alberta and NL?
“Two Party System”: Two major competitive
parties
Normal in “SMP” – US, Australia, UK, most Canadian
Provinces
Two-Plus Party System: Two competitive
parties plus some extra “effective” parties
Additional party can hold “balance of power”
Germany, Ontario
“Multiparty System”: More than two parties are
“significant” in the struggle for power.
Netherlands, France, Israel and places where there is
“PR”.
Question: Where does Canada fit?
In parliament traditionally = Two Party Plus
In elections and citizens votes = “Multiparty”
Difference is a product of the “electoral system”!
5) Conclusions:
Citizens are often unaware of how electoral system
contributes to party system and responsiveness of
government . . . .
Canada has a very complex party system, but the
electoral system rewards two party competition
Produces unexpected results . . . .
6) For next time:
Unit Eight: Political Socialization
and Culture (March 18 and 20)
Required Reading: MacLean and
Wood, Chapter 8.
Research Papers due, in class, March 18.