Assoc. Prof. Murat Somer, CASE 153
E-mail: [email protected]
Fall 2015 Office Hours:
Tuesdays, 3:00-5:00pm
Chapter 9: Political Parties and Electoral
Systems
Learning Objectives
 Describe how political parties differ from interest
groups.
 Differentiate among the types of party systems.
 Characterize the alternative electoral
arrangements used in democratic elections, and
explain the relationship between electoral
systems and party systems.
 Describe the party systems and key electoral
outcomes in the Topic in Countries and Spotlight
on countries.
Political Parties and Party
Systems
 The Value of Political Parties
 Party Identification
 Party Systems
 One-party systems
 One-party dominant systems
 Two-party systems
 Two-and-a-half party systems
 Multiparty systems
Political Parties and Party
Systems
 Political Parties
 Are central link between the elites and masses
 Seek political office, generally through participation
in elections
 An organization, community of communities held
together typically by an overarching ideology
 Different from interest groups: Political parties do not
concentrate on a single issue. They aggregate and
articulate interests
Political Parties and Party
Systems
 The Value of Political Parties
1. They propose new policies and proclaim what
they will do in the office
Most parties are not programmatic, they focus on
leader’s personality
 2. Parties simplify voters’ decision-making by
gathering politicians with similar views
 3. Ease of accountability: If voters do not like what is
going on in a country, they can punish the ruling party
by voting to the alternative ones.
 4. Central link between masses and elites, active
participants in politics.
 5. They are (supposed to be) much more
institutionalized and enduring than social movements or
interest groups (hence les subject to collective action
problems)
Political Parties and Party
Systems
 Party Systems
 One-party systems
 One-party dominant systems
 Two-party systems
 Two-and-a-half party systems
 Multiparty systems
Party Identification & Party
Systems
 Comparativists study party identification: someone’s
attachment to a particular party
 Strong party identification: Individuals vote for the same
party election after election
 Weak party identification: Swing voter, more personalized
politics (candidate rather than party matters), more fluid
system
 Collection of the main parties in a country generates that
country’s party system
 One party system, one-party dominant system, two party
system, two-and-a-half party system, multiparty system,
no party system (ex: Iran)
One-Party Systems:
 Single party coordinates government activities and
mobilizes mass support
 During elections, the candidates within the single
party are elected.
 Versions from the harshest to less harsh: totalitarian,
authoritarian and pragmatic (Sartori)
 Example: Chinese Communist Party
(Moved from totatlitarian
to authoritarian)
One-Party Dominant Systems:
 One party can dominate political systems without full
control over political system
 Small parties are not banned, but receive little vote
 This can raise questions about the democratic
nature of the system
 This system can emerge after democratization or
independence of a country
 Example: Mexico’s PRI, Polish
Communist Party, India’s Congress
Party, United Russia in recent years
Two-Party System
 Two major parties compete for control of government
 Coalitions remain unnecessary
 Small parties may exist, but not very successful
 Example: US  Democratic Party vs. GOP
Two-and-a-Half Party Systems
 In addition to two party systems, there is a third party
 Third party is influential, but has a much less vote in
the parliament than two large parties
 Yet, the third party does not have the power to exist
in a coalition
 Example: West Germany Two major parties had
80% of the votes. There was also a third party.
 Moved to multiparty after unification
Multiparty Systems
 Large number of key parties (generally >3)
 Large parties may exist, yet they are not as dominant
as in other party systems.
 Parties can form coalitions (It is the norm)
 Turkish National
Elections 1999
JUNE 7 2015 ELECTIONS
NOVEMBER 1 ELECTIONS
Pros and Cons of Large Number of
Major Political Parties
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
More option for voters. Masses are
better represented. There is greater
likelihood that a voter will find a party
closest to his/her ideology.
Instability, because of fragile coalitions.
Disputes among ruling parties can get
harsher since each may consider itself as
the core of the coalition
Minority interests are better
represented. Smaller parties are not
forced to merge with larger ones.
In two-party systems, optimal choice to
appeal to center. In multi-party systems,
this does not exist. Parties can hold
more ideological agendas
Difficult to hold parties accountable:
Which party will be punished in a
poorly performing coalition? The
largest? Or all the coalition members?
Elections and Electoral Systems
 Election: A form of conventional mass participation
where population chooses among candidates or
political parties seeking office
 Adam Przeworski: “Democracy is a system where
parties lose elections”
 In democratic systems, a ruling party or president
can lose elections and be removed.
Elections and Electoral
Systems
 Types of Electoral Systems
 Proportional representation (PR)

Closed vs. Open list proportional representation (open list PR)
 First past the post (FPTP)
 Single-member districts versus multi-member districts
 Hybrid systems
Proportional Representation (PR)
 In its pure form: The % of seats a party gets is equal
to the % of votes it gets.
 Example: Party X gets 25% of votes  25% of the
seats reserved in the parliament  On the party’s
candidate list, the first 25 names get those seats
(leader at the top of the list)
 PR encourages small parties
 Threshold: Rule that parties should get a certain
percentage of votes to be in the parliament (ex:
Turkey, 10%). Threshold encourages smaller parties
to merge.
Elections and Electoral
Systems
 Advantages of PR Electoral Systems
 Minority interests are represented
 Women are more likely to be elected to office
 Emphasis on ideas over personalities
 Disadvantages of PR Electoral Systems
 Too many small parties with disproportionate importance
 PR facilitates extremist parties
First Past the Post (FPTP)
 Voters do not vote for political parties; but vote for an




individual political candidate in a relatively small district.
The candidate getting the plurality of the votes (ex:
>50%) in that district gains the seat.
Only one person gets elected in a district SingleMember District (SMD)
Large number of candidates. Ex: In case of 5 candidates,
one should get only above 20%. An extreme candidate
with loyal followers can do that (But more than 70%
would be unhappy)
Primary election: Voters elect which candidate will
represent a party…
Think and Discuss
Does a PR system’s advantages, such as
doing a better job of representing the interests
of minority groups, outweigh its disadvantages,
such as potentially giving small parties the
ability to hijack the process of creating and
maintaining a ruling coalition? Why?
Topic in Countries
 The United Kingdom
 Generally considered a two-and-a-half party system
 Labour Party has controlled the government since 1997;
the main opposition party is the Conservative Party
(“Tories”); the third largest party is the Liberal Democratic
Party
 FPTP for House of Commons elections; tends to produce
a majority party (which then controls the prime minister
position)
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
Duverger’s Law and British Elections
 Maurice Duverger believed that electoral systems
have two basic consequences: psychological and
mechanical
 Believed FPTP systems encourage two-party
systems
 Electoral results in the United Kingdom cast doubt
on Duverger’s law
Mixed systems
 Combine alternative vote (voters rank candidates)
with SMD: Preference system
 Combine alternative vote (voters rank candidates)
with MMD: Single tranferable vote (STV)
Think and Discuss
Does the existence of regionally strong third
parties in the United Kingdom have
implications for the United States?
Could American third parties be successful if
they adopted a regional strategy rather than
trying to run as national parties?
Topic in Countries
 Germany
 Multiparty system with two main parties: Christian
Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD)
 Electoral system for the Bundestag combines PR and
FPTP; PR seats distributed to create overall totals as if a
pure PR system
In Theory and Practice
Realignment Theory and Germany
 Realignment Theory
 Developed by scholars of American politics
 Claims “critical elections” remake a country’s political
landscape
 Germany and Realignment Theory
 Some see Germany as experiencing a realignment
following 2005 elections
 The 2005 Bundestag election produced no clear winner;
result was a CDU/SPD grand coalition
 Aftermath included a new party, the Left Party
Topic in Countries
 India
 Multiparty system (six national parties); Congress Party
(INC) dominated for much of early independence period
and heads the ruling coalition at present; BJP is INC’s main
rival
 SMD/FPTP system for Lok Sabha; majorities are hard to
come by, so coalitions between national and regional
parties are common
Topic in Countries
 Mexico
 The Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) dominated
for much of the 20th century; multiparty system
today with the National Action Party (PAN)
controlling the presidency but the PRI regaining
strength. Enrique Pena Nieto from PRI elected
president in 2012.
 The Congress is elected through a combination of PR and
FPTP (presidential winner comes from a FPTP national
vote)
In Theory and Practice
Party Organization Theory and Mexico
 Party Organization Theory
 Associated with Joseph Schlesinger
 Highlights the collective action problem of political parties;
why should individuals work for the party?
 Parties are market-based. Trade goods for voter support. But
their goods are public goods.
 Party “entrepreneurs” are willing to work hard because they
may gain personally through winning political office
 Mexico’s Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD)
 PRD founded by the son of a former PRI leader
Cardenas
 He was a party entrepreneur, but formed the PRD as
much or more because of policy differences with the
PRI as he did because of a desire to hold office
Topic in Countries
 Brazil
 Weak parties
 Very large number of parties gain seats in the
legislature; four are the most important, including
the Worker’s Party (PT), the party of President
Rousseff. Lower house chosen by PR (but
senators by FPTP and president by majority vote);
lower house uses “open list” PR
Topic in Countries
 Nigeria
 Emerging one-party dominant system (PDP
dominates the executive and legislature)
 Senate and House of Representatives elections are
SMD/FPTP; PDP has dominated elections since democracy
was restored in 1999
Topic in Countries
 Russia
 Weak party system after collapse of USSR; turned
into one-party dominant system under Putin
 Used to be a hybrid system; President Putin
pushed to change it to PR only; 2007 legislative
elections and 2008 presidential elections sparked
claims of irregularities
Topic in Countries
 China
 Classic one-party system; CCP continues to
dominate Chinese politics
 No real national elections; but, local elections have
some genuine competition; candidates in village
elections not always those preferred by the CCP
 Some believe these local elections are an
experiment in democracy–like the special
economic zones that were an experiment with
capitalism before it spread across the country
Topic in Countries
 Iran
 A few main political parties after 1979 Revolution;
parties later replaced by loose electoral coalitions;
today, a “no party system”
 Guardian Council can block candidates from running for
office; in Majles elections, some districts are single-member
while others are multi-member
Think and Discuss
The previous chapter discussed non-electoral
mechanisms for linking elites and masses.
This chapter focuses on political parties and
elections. Which of these sets of mechanisms
are more important for understanding mass
participation and how masses are linked to
elites? Why?
TIC Country
Current Leader/Leaders
Example of Decision-Making and its
Rationality
United Kingdom
David Cameron (Prime Minister)
Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands Island War
Germany
Angela Merkel (Chancellor)
Helmut Kohl and the German Currency Union
India
Narendra Modi (Prime Minister)
Manmohan Singh and the Indo-U.S. Nuclear
Agreement; ITAP feature on incrementalism
Mexico
Enrique Pena Niteo (President)
Ernesto Zedillo and liberalization; ITAP feature on
rational choice theory and NAFTA
Brazil
Dilma Rousseff (President)
Henrique Cordoso and the Plano Real
Nigeria
Muhammadu Buhari (President)
The Nigerian Civil War
Russia
Vladimir Putin (President); Dmitry
Medvedev (Prime Minister)
The Coup against Mikhail Gorbachev
China
Xi Jinping (President)
Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward, and the
Cultural Revolution; ITAP feature on Deng Xiaoping,
Tiananmen Square, and elite learning
Iran
Hassan Rouhani (President); Ali
Khamenei (Supreme Leader)
The choice to bar reformist candidates in the 2004
Majles election
France
François Hollande (President)
Sarkozy and the decision to ban burqas in public
Iraq
Fuad Masum (President); Haider alAbadi (Prime Minister)
Nouri al-Maliki and the decision on whether to
maintain a U.S. troop presence in Iraq
South Africa
Jacob Zuma (President)
The 2011 Immigration Amendment Bill