POL 1000 – Lecture 11:
Political Parties & Electoral
Systems
Sean Clark
Lecturer, Memorial University
Doctoral Fellow, CFPS
Fall Session, 2011
Lecture Arc
 1. Theory of Political Parties.
 Definition & classification.
 Origins.
 Activities & Functions.
 2. Electoral Systems.
 SMD.
 PR.
 Mixed (SMD + PR).
 History.
Political Parties
 19th C response to growth of suffrage was birth of the political party.
 Utility of parties = enduring & ubiquitous.
 Definition.
 Group of officials (or would-be leaders) linked to public in single organization.
 Purpose of assoc is for officials to attain power.
 Diff from int gps (acquire power & direct policy vs just lobby)
 Have platforms (i.e. freedom vs order, material inequality, etc), but these are generally malleable.
 Pursuit of power therefore comes at a cost (have to sacrifice principles for sake of
popularity).
 Dispersion of parties (i.e. degree) will rely on political culture.
 Homogenous populxn = parties gravitate towards a common mean.
 Disunity = politics will be much more raucous.
 Not limited to democracies.
 Revolutionary: for seizing state (ie Communists).
 Totalitarian: for running state (ie Nazi Party).
 Organizational tightness varies.
 Membership loose (move in & out of party). Ie US.
 Moderate (stable memberships). Ie Canada & UK.
 Tight (rigorous entry, strictly hierarchical). Ie CCP.
Party Origins

Parties born out of elite self-interest.

Before democ, officials appointed to office in various ways:

Democ: need supt of 1000s, not few. = create groups to bind leaders w masses.
 Hereditary.
 Purchase (or sometimes bribery).
 Appointment (for politics or merit—patronage can be for good or ill, though often latter).
 Parties offer ‘economies of scale.’



==> Political parties born.




Easier to put up Big Tent than go door-to-door.
National groups (affiliates in each region) can co-op, share popular leaders, & enjoy econ of scale (pool $ & hire pro
staff for everyone).
US: by 1820s well established (incl Democ Party).
UK: 1832 Liberal & Reform Assocs boost #s & natl orgzxn after suffrage expanded
(10% of pop by 1867).
Europe: growth of suffrage accompanied by arrival of political parties.
 Trend continues even today.
Note: parties appear in autocracies as well.


Communist Parties, Democratic Party (Egypt), ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe).
Not needed for elections, but great at linking public to regime & its set of leaders.
 Parties proven to be incredibly adaptable (the ‘miracle glue’ of
politics).
 From defensive invention (by officeholders, to keep jobs in face of
increasing suffrage) to enduring, world-wide popularity.
 Facilitate both control & communication.
 Take input from grassroots to leaders (i.e. thru local officials & conventions), &
allow leaders to communicate w ground (i.e. ‘get-out-the-vote’ drives & local
rallies).
 Mass party was the mobilizing device of mass politics in the 20thC.
Activities & Functions
 Role of political parties:
 Policymaking. (innovate, design, & articulate).
 Leader selection.
 Government formation.
 Types of parties.
 Cadre party (dominated by leaders).
 Mass party.
 Militant party (reduced but actively mobilized membership).
 Political party systems: 2, 2-and-a-half, & multiparty.
 More parties, more diverse the issues & less predictable the outcomes.
 1. Mobilization of the masses.
 Democs require citizen participation.
 Who wants to vote when it’s cold? Humid? The Wire on TV?
 Govts have difficulty mobilizing masses.
 Resource constraint & fears of voter interference inhibit.
 However, parties excellent at stirring up electorate.
 Leaders have centralizing infl (direct traffic & bring coherence to disparate pol views).
 Membership extends down to every village = can get out vote at all levels.
 Self interest (want supporters to show up at the polls) = enhance democ vibrancy for everyone.
 Parties mobilize for more than elections:
 Millions of Egyptians in supt of Mubarak, post Sadat assassination.
 De Gaulle supporters in 1969.
 Can mobilize against a regime.
 Congress Party (India), National Front for Liberation (Algeria), Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt).
Activities & Functions, II
 2. Political Choice.
 Organize coherent candidate slates & policy/idea platforms.
 Offer elite recruitment.
 Interest Aggregation: bring discipline to confusion (make voter choice
practicable).
 If everyone a solo candidate, too many policy positions to make easy distinctions.
 Relatedly, offer point of reference (roadmap to diff political views).
 3. Accountability.
 Parties make clear who belongs to ruling class (who should be blamed for
what) = easy to vote out of office.
 I.e. punishment of Liberal party post-Gomery.
 4. Channels of Control.
 One-Party Systems.
 Use parties to control military (ie high-ranking Communist officers were Party
members; use of Party Commissars).
 Use parties to control citizens (place party members at head of influential orgzxns, incl
univs, media, industry).
 Democratic systems.
 Leaders exert control over party officials.
 Nomination of key positions.
 Support or oppose legislation.
 Advancement thru party hierarchy.
==> Members toe party line.
The Future?
 Parties have proven popular in all sorts of political &
cultural circumstances.
 Currently is push in Canada to bring them to municipal level.
 Driven by concerns city politics is too chaotic, too unprofessional.
 Perhaps as politics becomes more professional (i.e. need for
TV, Twitter knowledge, ad $), party technocrats will become
eve more important.
 Yet what of ‘de-alignment’ trend?
 What is implication for democracy if fewer people join parties?
 W less $ being raised, now generally rely heavily on the govt.
 Does less party membership = less political engagement, less concern w
political matters?
 Is declining party membership a reflection of political apathy?
 Are people just abandoning parties, or politics more generally?
 Related to shrinking voter turnout?
 What of protest movements?
 Can you shape politics w/o a clear platform, organization, or leaders?
 I.e. Bachmann & the Tea Partiers vs GOP establishment.
Electoral Systems
 Elections are key.
 Express popular will & check authorities.
 Simplest expression of a democracy: governments lose.
 Right to vote secretly & be free from coercion is essential.



Buttressed by free speech, assoc, poll access, & registration. And w fairness of election admin (incl
vote counting), suffrage laws, balanced reporting by media, & equitable campaign laws.
Are especially wary when:
 is a dominant party (PRI as ‘party of the state’ = unique access to spoils which it could pass out w
its elaborate patronage network).
 voter choice is restricted (i.e. Cuba: 601 seats, 601 reps).
 Soviet era joke: thieves broke in & stole next year’s election results.
Thugs & non-secret ballots do not assist free expression.
 Country is divided into constituencies.
 When boundaries controlled by politicians, will try to make their re-election easier.
 Every 10yrs in US, following census, each state redraws Congressional & state districts.

‘Gerrymandering’ = concentrate your electoral base. Dilute opponent’s.


I.e. US districts have no reflection of geography, since governing parties control process.
Try to limit w third-party panels (i.e. Canada & census officials).


Is term from Gov Gerry of Mass. & the ‘salamander’ shape on an 1812 district map he drew to favour his party.
Old saying: ‘redistricting: when politicians get to choose their voters.’
 Electoral systems.
 Rules decide how votes are cast, counted, & translated into seats.
 Constituencies.
 Number.

Range from 3,000 in China, to 308 in Can, to ~30 in Bermuda.
 Location of boundaries (ie power dilution & concentration).
System Types
 1. SMD (single member districts; voting for individuals).
 Plurality (‘first-past-the-post’), i.e. UK, Canada.
 Majority (‘multiple-round voting’), i.e. French president.
 Majority vote (50%+1) wins.
 Drop until get majority. I.e. Round 2 is clash of the titans.
 Alternative Vote (‘preferential ballot’; until majority), i.e. Australia.
 Cast 1 vote, but w candidates ranked.
 If not enough 1st choices for 50%+1, then add 2nds. Then 3rds, etc.
 Is version of majority SMD (only one winner per seat—though w >er incorporation of
preferences; though not multiple rounds of voting).
 Winner-takes-all = can place strongly (i.e. 2nd place in every
seat), yet still get nothing.
 Thus receives ‘seat bonus’, where earns more seats than raw #s suggest
(losers not as unpopular as seat count makes it seem).
 Duverger’s Law: leads to few small parties (why vote for weak party if vote
will be ‘wasted’?)
 Thus vote strategically, or ‘insincerely’, backing a 2nd-best option when your 1st has not
shot of winning.
 Regional ‘cleavage’ parties will prove exception (i.e. Bloc in Canada) bc are so
geographically concentrated.
 UK: more than 50% of seats deemed ‘very safe’ or ‘ultra safe.’
 On the other hand, favouring winners = generally is majority govt.
 Winner dominance = usually 50%+ seats = govt gets legislxn passed.
System Types, cont.
 2. PR (proportional representation: voting for parties).
 MMD (multi-member districts: many reps for 1 district, whether it be whole
country, i.e. Slovakia, or region, i.e. Germany).
 Don’t have to win to get seats. Is not just about coming first.
 1. Parties submit candidates on a list (‘slates’)—generally (as in Germany &
Israel).
 Are voting for parties, not local candidates.
 2. Voters choose party.
 3. % party vote = % party seats (provided meet threshold—2% in Isr, 5% in
Germ, 10% in Turk—to PKK’s chagrin).
 I.e. 10% of vote = 10% of seats = (in 100-seat parl) 10 seats total.
 (Usually) select by walking down slate: i.e. 1st 10 names get in.

Norm is ‘closed’ list (i.e. Portugal, S. Africa, Spain), where public can’t alter. Some, however, have ‘open’ lists,
where voters can rank party slates (i.e. Swiss, Luxembourg).
 Related is Single Transferable Vote (STV).
 Is like AV, where rank candidates. But rather than one member takes all (after reaching
50%+1), is selection of multiple members after a quota is reached (usually total votes/ # of
ranked candidates.

Person(s) who exceeds quota wins a seat. 2nd choices of any votes for these over the quota (‘surplus’) then
distributed to see if any others now reach threshold. If no candidate reaches threshold, bottom candidate is
dropped until enough 2nd preferences are shifted so the required number of seats are filled.
 Probs: party control of list, too many disparate voices in parliament (i.e.
extremists), complex voting & seat calculation procedures, & poor connection to
constituency (who is rep when are many?).
 Plus, ‘logjams’ & govt stability--tough to get majority vote (to pass legislation) when so
many different parties (‘hung parliament’).
 Virtues: fewer ‘wasted’ votes, more inclusive parliament.
System Types, III
 3. Mixed
 Both SMD plurality + PR.
 Japan, Germany, Lithuania include some of each (i.e. you get 2 votes,
one for SMD, one for PR).
 Enjoy both a local rep (to make sure potholes are filled), & preference for a national
platform. Can even vote strategically (i.e. for 2 parties).
 Result: mixture. I.e. Germany has two main parties (CDU & SPD), but also often
need coalition partners (i.e. Greens).
 Are many ways to turn votes into seats.
 Each reflects different preferences (as all involve
tradeoffs—i.e. stability vs inclusion).
Referenda
 Govt asks question, public votes (‘direct democracy,’ as per
Athenian ideal).
 Public can submit initiatives as well (w enough signatures).
 Usually nonbinding, but adhered to (to often seen as political
suicide to ignore people’s will).
 Is popular mechanism for translating popular will into
specific policies.
 I.e. Swiss, Americans love.
 Ballot initiatives are common.
 Swiss: from Middle Ages at local level (14thC), from 19thC at federal.
 Since 1874: 50,000 signature = get to vote to see if bill survives (based on
simple majority). Since 1891: 100k signatures = new, amend, or remove
constxn article.
 Downside: California (public can be selfish & dumb).
 Citizens choose not to pay taxes or borrow, but choose to have abundant
services as well, = financial gridlock.
 CA ‘09: had to pay staff w ‘IOUs’.
 Rather than curb on elites, have become pray to well-organized &
financed ballot initiatives.
 70-90% of budget by previous ballot initiatives, rather than legislature.
 6 initiatives qualified for ballot in 1960s, 74 in 2000s. (Econ p4)
 Particularly crucial is CA provision that passed ballots are a higher class
of law—leg cannot reverse them (is only place w this).
 Lesson: political participation is good, but public can be dumb.
Electoral Reform in Canada

Efforts in Canada for a more PR-type system.


Referenda in ON ’09 (mixed); BC ‘05, ’09 (STV).
Aim: decr vote ‘wastage,’ thus help out small parties & get youth engaged.
 Why vote now if the traditional parties do not appeal to you

The downside? Potential for turbulence.

W/o majority party, how be confident will keep House’s confidence?
 Many Canadians uncomfortable w minority govts even w current system.

NZ as template?

1914-’93: FPTP.
 ‘92, ‘93: referenda on electoral reform.


‘Mixed’ wins w 53.4% of vote.
Electoral results:
 ‘43-’93: avg 2 parties in parl.
 ’96-present: avg 7 parties.

Prob: has been no majority govt since adopted mixed system.
 Can minority govt make or reverse the tough decisions of the ‘90s?
 2011: referendum to discuss getting rid of new form.

Referenda…& Results:




ON: ‘07: 36.9% Yes.
BC ‘05: 57% Yes (though < 60% ‘supermajority’).
BC ‘09: (only) 39.8% Yes.
What now?


UK May ‘11 AV result: 32.1% Yes, 67.9% No (on 41% turnout).
Federal NDP platform: pro-PR. Yet where in power (i.e. NS), no referendum to change.