And Election Systems

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

 In democracies, citizens organize their political activity through political parties and the election process.  Parties develop out of our differences about how to achieve common goals. They are a natural product of a democratic and free society.

According to the text, the purpose is “to put forward proposed leaders whom they support for official positions in government.” Also, parties want to have an impact on public policy. They don’t simply want to win office; they want to win office so that they can affect what decisions are made.

 Even when they lose office, parties perform a useful role in a democracy, by organizing the opposition and offering alternatives.  Parties create important links between the voter, groups & government. To succeed, they must build consensus.

 1. they mobilize ordinary citizens, either to vote or to achieve some other political goal.  2. they recruit and socialize leaders, even in one-party states.  3. they provide a long-lasting sense of party identification.

 4. they can provide a means for party leaders to control rank and file members.  5. they provide links between: ◦ Branches of government in a separation of powers system. ◦ Levels of government in a federal system. ◦ Citizens and government in all systems.

Functions may differ. They: * mobilize support for the regime. * recruit and train potential leaders. * oversee the bureaucracy. * spy on population (in totalitarian systems) Not a link between the bottom and top, but a means of social control by the top over the bottom.

 One-Party Authoritarian. Government & party closely linked. No opposition parties permitted.  Example: ◦ Communist Party in North Korea Kim Il Sung of North Korea

 Dominant Party System; one-party dominates for long periods of time. No legal ban on other parties, but only one party has chance to win office, and there may be informal harassment of opposition parties.  Examples: ◦ PRI in Mexico until the 1990s ◦ Japan until the 1990s ◦ Singapore

 Two Party System. Either party has genuine chance to win office; elections truly competitive. Additional parties not outlawed but have serious difficulty winning because of electoral system. Tend to be umbrella parties; tend to be stable. Disadvantage: Voters limited to two choices.  Examples: ◦ United States, Canada, Britain, New Zealand

 Multi-Party System. Competitive elections with multiple parties ensure that no one party can dominate for long. Parties tend to be more doctrinaire and distinctive, giving voters more choice.

In Multi-party states, it’s difficult for any one party to win a majority. Coalitions with similar parties become necessary. But coalition partners may resign over particular government policies, so this system is less stable. Example of government instability: Italy, from 1945 to 1995, had 44 different coalition governments.

 March 2006 Election outcome: Kadima Party wins the most with 28 seats in the Knesset. The new Prime Minister Olmert must form a coalition government.

Winning party: Kadima: 28 seats, centrist Probable partners: 2. Labour: 20 seats, centre-left Possible partners: 3. Shas: 13 seats, ultra-orthodox 4. Pensioners: 7 seats, single-issue 5. Torah Judaism: 6 seats, ultra-orthodox 6. Meretz: 4 seats, left-wing Unlikely partners: 7. Israel Beitenu: 12 seats, Russian emigres, far- right 8. Likud: 11 seats, right-wing 9. Arab parties: 10 seats 10. National Union/Religious: 9 seats, far-right, settlers

Single Member Plurality (SMP) The candidate who wins a plurality of the vote prevails; a majority is not needed. Only one seat per district. No way for voters to designate their 2 nd choice. Tends to produce a two-party system unless a small party’s voters are concentrated in a district.  Used in the U.S., Canada, India, Britain, New Zealand, Germany.

 Proportional Representation (PR). Each district has multiple seats. Each political party wins the same proportion of seats as the vote it wins. Favors the development of multiple political parties.

Sample ballot if we used PR for Congress

Assume the following vote distribution in a district with 10 parliamentary seats: Quisenberry Party wins 50% Wiggins Party wins 30% Baker Party wins 20% How many seats does each party win?

Wiggins Party wins 50% Quisenberry Party wins 30% Baker Party wins 20% SO: Wigginistas gain 5 seats Quisenberries win 3 seats Bakerites gain 2 seats

Where do You Stand?

 A person’s views on the issues help determine where they fall on the political spectrum.  The labels used on the spectrum are not pure categories, but they make up a continuum, or value line, and citizens and politicians fall somewhere on that line depending on what they believe.

 Two major factors shape political views. ◦ The first is how much change a person is willing to have within their society and government. ◦ The second deals with how much government involvement in the economy a person calls for.  Others also bring in the question of how much freedom from government authority a leader is willing to give the people.

 To see where you stand, you would have to figure out where you stand on a number of social (people-related), economic (money- related), and political (governmental) issues.  First you need definitions of the terms radical, liberal, conservative, and reactionary. Some authors include the terms authoritarian and libertarian.

 Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system.  They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution. V.I. Lenin: Mastermind of the Russian Revolution and Father of the Soviet Union

 Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation’s citizens.  They usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system.  They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo. Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King

 Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives.  They are seen as tolerant of other people’s views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own.  They advocate a “go- slow” or “wait-and-see” approach to social or political change. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is generally seen as a moderate.

 People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire.  Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way.  They feel that the less government there is, the better.  They agree with Jefferson’s view that “the best government governs least.” Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) is widely regarded as the father of the modern conservative movement

 Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were—the “good ol’ days.” Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.  The term “reactionary is generally negative. A positive way to say the same thing is “arch- conservative.” Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a typical reactionary manifesto

 Here is how one website places important American political figures on the spectrum.