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. Introduction2. Types of Parties3. Party Organization and Campaigns4. 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/governmentsMembers raise $$$$ for campaigns

Often no “constitutional” role & limited regulation

Traditional functions:

Recruit candidates and voters to participate in system – the “Recruitment Function”

Support new candidatesEnsure 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 PartyGerman 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 groupsCanadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special interestsExamples?

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 groupsCanadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special interestsExamples?

=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 USDominance 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 votersWhat 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!” LinkThe 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.