POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics

1. POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties (Part Two) Russell Alan Williams

2. Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties “Political Parties” • Required Reading:Maclean and Wood, Chap. 7. • Outline: • Introduction • Types of Parties • Party Organization and Campaigns • Party Systems • Ideological Competition • Structure of Competition

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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”?

6. 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”

7. “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

8. 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

9. 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 fufillingtheir role if we choose based on the qualities of the leaders etc.??????

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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”

14. 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 dominancein parliamentary system

15. 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?

16. 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” . . . .

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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 twoparties are “significant” in the struggle for power. • Netherlands, France, Israel and places where there is “PR”. Question: Where does Canada fit?

23. In parliament traditionally = Two Party Plus • In elections and citizens votes = “Multiparty” Difference is a product of the “electoral system”!

24. 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 . . . .

25. 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.