Special TA Office Hours (April 5th-7th) Jason HildebrandtJason Hildebrandt
Monday 1:00-2:00Monday 1:00-2:00 Wednesday 1:00-2:00Wednesday 1:00-2:00
Laszlo SarkanyLaszlo Sarkany Monday 10:00-12:00Monday 10:00-12:00 Monday 1:00-3:00Monday 1:00-3:00
Nadir BudhwaniNadir Budhwani TBATBA
Esmorie MillerEsmorie Miller Tuesday 11:00-12:00Tuesday 11:00-12:00 Wednesday 11:00-12:00Wednesday 11:00-12:00
Matt O’RourkeMatt O’Rourke Tuesday 10:00-11:00Tuesday 10:00-11:00 Tuesday 1:00-2:00Tuesday 1:00-2:00
Korhan YazganKorhan Yazgan Monday 1:00-2:00Monday 1:00-2:00 Wednesday 1:00-2:00Wednesday 1:00-2:00
Nikki PetruniakNikki Petruniak Tuesday, 10:00-11:00Tuesday, 10:00-11:00 Tuesday 1:00-2:00Tuesday 1:00-2:00
Herb ShieldsHerb Shields Tuesday 1:00-3:00Tuesday 1:00-3:00 Wednesday 1:00-3:00Wednesday 1:00-3:00
Electoral Systems Electoral Systems (Cont’d)(Cont’d)Ensuring Representation, Ensuring StabilityEnsuring Representation, Ensuring Stability
March 30March 30thth, 2004, 2004
Alternative Systems: Proportional Representation
representation (# of seats) directly proportional to share of popular vote received (# of votes)
Hypothetical Results Under Different Electoral Systems - 2000 Election
% Vote Seats: SMPS
Seats: PR
Liberal
CA
BQ
NDP
PC
Hypothetical Results Under Different Electoral Systems - 2000 Election
% Vote Seats: SMPS
Seats: PR
Liberal 40.8% 172 (57%)
CA 25.5% 66 (22%)
BQ 10.7% 38 (12.6%)
NDP 8.5% 13 (4.3%)
PC 12.2% 12 (4%)
Hypothetical Results Under Different Electoral Systems - 2000 Election
% Vote Seats: SMPS
Seats: PR
Liberal 40.8% 172 (57%) 127
CA 25.5% 66 (22%) 77
BQ 10.7% 38 (12.6%) 30
NDP 8.5% 13 (4.3%) 27
PC 12.2% 12 (4%) 37
Liberal Canadian Alliance
Progressive Conservative
Bloc Quebecois
New Democrats
2000 PR 2000 PR 2000 PR 2000 PR 2000 PR
Atlantic
19 13 0 3 9 11 0 0 4 5
QB 36 34 0 5 1 4 38 30 0 1
ON 100 53 2 25 0 15 0 0 1 9
MB/SK
7 8 14 11 1 3 0 0 6 7
AB/BC
7 16 50 33 1 5 0 0 2 5
CDA
172 127 66 77 12 37 38 30 13 27
Electoral Systems & Democracy
SMPS exaggerates political dominance of largest group of voters to
emphasize leadership, stability and accountability• do all models of democracy value bold leadership equally??
creates false majority rule concern with rights of minorities? concern with representation?
proportional representation more competition and choice
better representation of various interests more effective and meaningful political participation
higher level of consensus required for government to act
Political PartiesInterest Aggregation
Interest Representation
March 30th, 2004
Political Parties vs. Interest Groups interest groups strive to influence
political outcomes political parties strive to become
the governing party both represent political interests
political parties also aggregate interests
in doing so, political parties act to filter interests
Type of Political Parties
basis of organization electoral-professional parties vs.
mass parties basis of electoral competition
pragmatic parties (brokerage parties)
ideological-programmatic parties interest parties
http://www.guinnessvote.ca/register.html
Ideological/Programmatic Parties organized around social cleavages
class religion ethnicity region
traditional conceptions of ideology left vs. right
The Ideological SpectrumThe Ideological Spectrum
The Left -- The Left -- SocialistSocialist
The Right -- The Right -- ConservativeConservative
•government regulation of government regulation of the economythe economy
•policies to help policies to help disadvantaged groupsdisadvantaged groups
•policies to redistribute policies to redistribute incomeincome
•greater reliance on the greater reliance on the marketmarket
•fewer government fewer government regulationsregulations
•no special treatment for no special treatment for special interest groupsspecial interest groups
•lower taxeslower taxes
More Gov’tMore Gov’t Less Gov’tLess Gov’t
General Trends -- Political Parties the rise of pragmatism
increasingly parties try to compete for the middle ground
differences between parties fading
The Ideological Spectrum The Ideological Spectrum The Rise of PragmatismThe Rise of Pragmatism
The Left -- The Left -- SocialistSocialist
The Right -- The Right -- ConservativeConservative
Tony Blair (Britain) New Labour
Bill Clinton (US) New Democrats
George W. Bush (US) Compassionate Conservatism
General Trends -- Political Parties single member plurality systems
encourage pragmatic parties; PR promotes ideological/interest parties
the rise of pragmatism parties increasingly competing to occupy
the centre of the political spectrum reasons?
success of pragmatic parties has been self-reinforcing
the fall of communism affluence of western industrialized
societies
Political Parties & Democracy mass parties vs. electoral-
professional parties mass parties encourage greater
participation in politics by the public
majoritarian democrats electoral-professional parties
parties perform minimalist function of structuring elections
elite democrats
Political Parties & Democracy ideological/interest parties vs. pragmatic
parties ideological/interest parties
gives clear electoral choices• help make elections meaningful• encourages greater mass participation
majoritarian democrats pragmatic parties
depend on party elites (to broker deals among various interests)
elections• differences between parties are limited• electoral choice is really about best
management team elite democrats
Political Parties & Democracy liberal democrats
crucial point is that individuals remain free to form political parties (and contest elections) free from state interference
Interest GroupsInterest Representation
Interest Groups
organizations whose members act together to influence gov’t policy on specific issues, without contesting elections (different from parties!) how do they influence -- lobbying
play an important role in representing citizen demands to gov’t
Determinants of Interest Group Influence: size (membership) and cohesion information, expertise leadership, level of organization financial resources high-status (celebrity) membership values, goals, tactics, issue -- compatible with
broader public opinion? ability to sway public opinion
Determinants of Influence -- Institutionalization• institutionalization -- degree to which a group has
become an acknowledged actor in/part of the political process
• levels of institutionalization• institutional/associational/anomic
• danger for group -- co-optation• to become institutionalized, interest groups
must adopt norms and behaviours inside the broader governing consensus
• must be more concerned with preserving priveleged position in the long-term than winning on certain issues
• danger for government – capture• government relies on group to the point that it
loses it ability to act autonomously in that issue area
What Interest Groups Do -- Lobbying tactics
quiet consultations lobbying elected officials lobbying bureaucratic officials
mobilizing public opinion media campaigns public demonstrations
the paradox of interest group influence the most powerful interest groups are
often the most quiet!
Interest Groups and Democracy majoritarian democratic critique of
interest group pluralism interest group politics is grossly uneven
well-financed, privileged interests hold the advantage
the paradox of interest group influence the strongest interest groups (e.g.
economic interests) do not have to lobby in order to have influence
interest group influence displaces the influence of the general public
special interest groups
Interest Groups and Democracy elite democracy
interest group competition and lobbying (even if grossly uneven) is fine so long as...
political elites retain the power to make overall decisions in the general welfare
• the summation of all interest group demands does not equal the general welfare
Interest Groups and Democracy liberal democracy
pluralism as long as individuals are free to
form interest groups, interest group competition represents interests in society
groups do not have to be equal; groups have to have equal opportunity to compete