Political parties & party systems:

DPI~413

Readings:Readings:

LeDuc et al ch by– Scarrow, Dalton, and Van BiezenScarrow, Dalton, and Van Biezen

Haerpfer et al Ch 14 (Morlino)– Ch 14 (Morlino)

StructureStructure

I. The function of parties for democracy II Electoral systems and party systemsII. Electoral systems and party systemsIII. Parties in the mass publicIV P ti i tiIV. Parties as organizationsV. Parties in government VI. Conclusions:

Strength of parties in government and yet weak g g yorganizations and partisan dealignment among citizens

I: Functions of partiesI: Functions of partiesV.O. Key (1964)

– Parties-in-the-electorate– Simplifying electoral choices for voters– Educating citizensg– Generating symbolic loyalties– Mobilizing citizens to participate

– Parties-as-organizations– Recruiting leaders for elected/appointed office

T i i lit– Training elites– Articulating interests– Aggregating interests

– Parties-in-governmentCreating government majorities– Creating government majorities

– Organizing government and the legislature– Implementing policy objectives– Organizing dissent– Ensuring responsibility for government actions– Fostering stability

Types of party systemsTypes of party systems1. Single-party systems

– Legal or constitutional bans on opposition parties– E.g. Communist party in USSR, China, Cuba

2. Predominant party systems– One large party for sustained period in government multiple fragmented opposition partiesOne large party for sustained period in government, multiple fragmented opposition parties– E.g. Congress party of India, 1947-1975, ANC S.Africa, Mexico until 2000, Swedish Social Democrats

1945-1998, Japan 1955-1993

3. Two-party system– Periodic alternation in government and opposition, other minor parties exist in the electorate

and legislature– Eg Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Spain, US

4 Moderate multi party system4. Moderate multi-party system– Several (4/5) parties, none approaching 50% of votes/seats, coalition governments– Eg Denmark, Germany

5 Fragmented multiparty system5. Fragmented multiparty system– Multiple parties (6+) in the legislature– E.g. Israel, Netherlands, Belgium

Why? yRole of electoral rules on party systems

Maurice Duverger (1954)Mechanical effects of electoral systemsMechanical effects of electoral systems– Due to constitutional provisions, legal statutes or

administrative regulations– Ballot access, campaign access to media and funds, vote

thresholds (legal and effective)Psychological effects of electoral systemsPsychological effects of electoral systems– The strategic incentives facing candidates, parties and voters

under electoral rulesunder electoral rules

Sequential processSequential processFigure 4.1: The sequential model of the main stages to elected office

Mechanical effects: due to constitutional requirements, legal statutes, or administrative procedures.

Nomination Campaigning

Ballot access:

The legal regulations for party registration and for parties to

nominate candidates on the official ballot paper.

Campaigning

Media and funding access:

The legal regulations governing access to free

campaign media and public funds or subsidies for parties

Election

The effective vote threshold:

The minimum share of the vote required for a party to win a

seat

Legislative office

Strategic contests: Tactical calculations by parties whether to

contest electoral districts.

Strategic campaign communications: Tactical

calculations by parties about how to target their campaign

communications

Strategic voting: Tactical calculations by electors

whether to vote for minor parties or their second-

preference choice

Psychological effects: due to the strategic incentives facing parties and citizens under electoral rules.

Feedback loop

Source: Pippa Norris 2005 Radical Right Cambridge University Press.

Types of electoral systemsTypes of electoral systemsNation StatesNation States

191

Majoritarian93

Combined27

PR64

No direct elections7

Majority27

Plurality66

Independent14

Dependent13

STV2

Party List62

AV2

2nd Ballot25

FPTP54

Bloc Vote10

STNV2

Closed Open

www.pippanorris.comAdversarial Consensual

Mechanical effects worldwideMechanical effects worldwideMean N of parl parties (1 seat)

Mean N of relevant parl parties (3%+

% Vote for party 1st

% Seats for party 1st

Number of countriesparties (1 seat) parl parties (3%+

seats)1st party 1st countries

All Majoritarian 5.22 3.33 54.5 56.8 83

Alternative Vote 9.00 3.00 40.3 45.3 1

Block vote 5.60 4.57 52.9 56.2 10

2nd Ballot 6.00 3.20 54.8 57.8 23

FPTP 4.78 3.09 55.1 57.8 49

All C bi d 8 85 4 52 46 8 49 5 26All Combined 8.85 4.52 46.8 49.5 26

Independent 8.89 3.94 51.7 53.9 19

Dependent 8.71 6.17 33.9 36.9 7

ALL Proportional 9.52 4.74 45.3 43.8 61

STV 5.00 2.50 45.3 50.1 2

Party List 9.68 4.82 44.5 43.6 59

www.pippanorris.com

TOTAL 7.05 4.12 48.7 50.0 143

ENPP by Electoral SystemENPP by Electoral SystemLaakso and Taagepera 1979

Effective Number of Parliamentary PartiesEffective Number of Parliamentary Parties

2.02 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MAJORITARIAN USA

UK 2.12.6

3.0

2.42.5

2.92 9

UKAustralia

CanadaCOMBINED

Korea, Republic ofTaiwanMexico

Thailand 2.92.9

3.33.5

3.85.4

6.0

ThailandJapan

GermanyHungary

New ZealandRussia

UkrainePROPORTIONAL

2.73.0

3.44.2

4.34.4

4 8

PROPORTIONALSpain

PolandRomania

Czech RepublicSwedenNorway

N th l d

www.pippanorris.com

4.84.9

5.15.55.6

9.1

NetherlandsDenmark

SwitzerlandSlovenia

IsraelBelgium

ProportionalityProportionalityRegressions

Majoritarian formula80

Proportional formula10080

60

40SNTV

100

80

60

40

% v

ote

20

0

-20

Two round

AV

Block Vote

FPTP

Rsq = 0.8128

% v

ote

40

20

0

20

STV

List PR

R 0 9532

%Seat

120100806040200-20

% q

Combined formula100

80

%Seat

100806040200-20

% -20 Rsq = 0.9532

60

40

20MMP

www.pippanorris.com%Seat

100806040200-20

% v

ote 0

-20

Parallel

Rsq = 0.9291

ProportionalityProportionalityStandardized Loosemore-Hanby Index

Proportionalityp y

8083

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

MAJORITARIAN UK

Canada 8384

94

84868686

CanadaAustralia

USACOMBINED

Korea, Republic ofJapan

UkraineHungary

8889

9294

9596

g yThailand

RussiaMexico

GermanyTaiwan

New ZealandPROPORTIONAL

8282

8489

9393

95

PolandRomaniaSlovenia

Czech RepublicSpain

SwitzerlandNetherlands

www.pippanorris.com

959696

9798

NorwayBelgium

IsraelSweden

DenmarkPeru

II Parties in the mass publicII. Parties in the mass public

Function of partisan identification– Cognitive short-cut or cue for evaluating new issues, policies,

candidates and leaderscandidates, and leadersAffective orientation measured by direction and strengthst e gt– “People associate themselves psychologically with one or

other of the parties, and this identification has predictable relationships with their perceptions evaluations and actions ”relationships with their perceptions, evaluations and actions.

– Campbell et al 1954.

Classical literatureClassical literature

First campaign surveys by the Columbia school in Erie county in 1940s –Paul Lazarsfeld et al.

1948 first U.S. national election surveys (NES) ; The Michigan school

Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes The American Voter (1960)Ca pbe , Co e se, e a d Sto es e e ca ote ( 960)

Philip Converse 1964 ‘The nature of beliefs systems’.

The American voterThe American voter

“The electorate is almost completely unable to judge the rationality of government actions; j g y g ;knowing little of the particular politics and what has led to them, the mass electorate is not able ,to appraise its goals or the appropriateness of the means chosen to secure these goals.” gCampbell et al. p543.

Funnel of causalityFunnel of causalityAge

RaceSex Events

Age

Vote choice

Party id.SES

Race

Candidate i

Issue preferences

Education, income

Region

images

Media

Ref: Campbell et al The American Voter 1954

Evidence?Evidence?

[Party identification] “Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” (A3004)[Direction] If ‘yes’, “Which party is that?” [A3005_1][Strength] “Do you feel very close to this [party/party block], somewhat close, or not very close?” (A3012)

The America Voter: ConclusionsThe America Voter: Conclusions

Low levels of cognitive knowledge and civic engagement in American electorateg g– Most Americans unable to name their elected

member of Congressg– Most unfamiliar with government institutions– Most do not understand the policy processp y p– Irrational voter

Yet Americans cast a ballot due to the cognitive Yet Americans cast a ballot due to the cognitive shortcut of affective party identification

Does party id anchor voters p yelsewhere?

Britain – Butler and Stokes –(1972) – Many ‘non-attitudes’ with unstable opinions over time and little

consistency among issuesconsistency among issuesFrance – Converse and Dupeaux (1963)– less interest than the US

Al d d V b (1963)Almond and Verba (1963)–– 5 nation study - few discussed politics frequently or read about

governmentStouffer (1955)– Support for democracy as an ideal but not in practice eg social

tolerance, freedom,

DealignmentDealignment

Widespread evidence of weakening partisan identification since 1950s & 1960s.Wh ?Why?Russ Dalton: Due to societal modernization

Improved educational levels– Improved educational levels– Growth of mass media– Fragmentation of interest groupsg g p– Long-term and steady process– Lead to new forms of democratic politics such as expansion

of direct democracy expanding use of the courts greater of direct democracy, expanding use of the courts, greater public consultation

Alternative explanationsAlternative explanations

Or due to ‘top down’ shifts in party strategies– Schmidt and Holmberg - Citizens & the StateSchmidt and Holmberg Citizens & the State– Cross-national variations in dealignment– ‘Catch-all’ (Kirchheimer) or ‘bridging’ partiesCatch all (Kirchheimer) or bridging parties

• Party strategies generate weaker party links to capture broad coalition of floating voters

• Esp. true in majoritarian electoral systems

TrendsTrends

Russell Dalton and Marty WattenbergParties without partisans (OUP 2000)Regress year on party id in 19 OECD nations– Partisan attachment weakened in 17

Si f ll ( 10 l l) i 13 – Sig. fall (.10 level) in 13 – Weaker by age and education (political sophistication)– Not concentrated among those dissatisfied with government g g

performance

ConsequencesConsequences

1. Greater electoral volatility2 Growth in party fragmentation (ENPP)2. Growth in party fragmentation (ENPP)3. Growth in split-ticket voting4 L t ti i i ti d i i4. Later timing in voting decisions5. Move towards candidate-centered politics

(leader v. party)6. Decline in party-based campaign participationp y p g p p

% with a party ID by nation6 3

8 1I s r a e l

A u s t r a l i a

% with a party ID by nation

4 95 15 1

5 25 35 4

5 96 3

C a n a d aI c e l a n d

N e w Z e a l a n dN o r w a yR u s s i a

U n i t e d S t a t e sU k r a i n e

I s r a e l

4 44 5

4 64 74 7

4 84 84 9

R o m a n i aC z e c h R e p

B r i t a i nS w e d e n

P o r t u g a lM e x i c oP o l a n d

D e n m a r k

3 23 5

3 63 73 7

4 24 3

4 4

T a i w a nH u n g a r y

G e r m a n yS w i t z e r l a n d

J a p a nS p a i n

B e l g i u mR o m a n i a

81 4

2 02 0

2 22 3

2 83 1

B e l a r sT h a i l a n d

C h i l eS l o v e n i a

P e r uK o r e a R e p

N e t h e r l a n d sL i t h u a n i a

8

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0

B e l a r u s

Note: Q: “Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” (%‘Yes’).Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, Module 1 1996-2002.

% Party id by type of society% Party id by type of society% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

4 1

4 7

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0

A l l

O ld e r d e m o c r a c y3 4

4 63 7

N e w e r d e m o c r a c y

P o s t i n d u s t r i a l

I n d u s t r i a l

5 7

4 2

4 14 6

C a n d i d a t e - b a l lo tP r e f e r e n c e b a l lo t

D u a l - b a l lo t

P a r t y b a l lo t

3 3

3 7

4 3

5 0

5 0

E x e c u t i v e o n lyL e g i s la t i v e a n d e x e c u t i v e

L e g i s la t i v e o n ly

N o r t h A m e r i c aS c a n d i n a v i a 5 0

4 04 0

4 0

2 2

S c a n d i n a v i a

W e s t e r n E u r o p e

C . & E . E u r o p e

A s i a - P a c i f i c

S o u t h A m e r i c a

% Party id by type of party% Party id by type of party% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o np y

4 1

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0

A L L

6 7

3 7

5 3

5 3

C o m m u n i s t

E c o l o g y

S o c i a l i s t

S o c i a l D e m o c r a t

5 8

4 1

4 9

5 1

L e f t L i b e r a l

L i b e r a l

R i g h t l i b e r a l

C o n s e r v a t i v e

6 2

3 3

4 4

N a t i o n a l i s t

Y o u n g e r p a r t y

O l d e r p a r t y

4 2

4 4

4 3

T w o p a r t y

M o d e r a t e m u l t i p a r t y

F r a g m e n t e d m u l t i p a r t y

Characteristics of partisansCharacteristics of partisans0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0

4 1

4 33 9

4 84 7

4 33 9

A L L

M e nW o m e n

S ix t i e s o r o l d e rF i f t i e s

F o r t i e sT h i r t i e s

3 3

4 64 0

4 23 7

5 45 2

4 0

T w e n t i e s

U n i v e r s i t yT e c h n i c a l

S e c o n d a r yP r im a r y

H ig h e s t k n o w le d g eH ig hL o w 4 0

3 2

4 84 2

4 13 93 9

5 4

L o wL o w e s t k n o w le d g e

In c o m e H ig h e s tH ig h

M o d e r a t eL o w

In c o m e L o w e s t

M a n a g e r i a l &5 0

4 44 4

4 2

5 34 6

4 13 8

4 3

L o w e r P r o f e s s io n sS k i l l e d w h i t e c o l l a r

S k i l l e d m a n u a lM a n u a l

M o s t r e l i g i o u s5432 4 3

4 3

4 83 9

4 83 6

2L e a s t r e l i g i o u s

U n io n m e m b e rN o t u n io n m e m b e r

L in g u i s t i c m a jo r i t yL in g u i s t i c m in o r i t y

Attitudes of partisansAttitudes of partisans% W i t h p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

4 1

4 72 0

4 4

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0

A L L

V o t e dD i d n o t v o t e

H i g h e f f i c a c y3 3

4 64 0

4 53 6

4 9

g yL o w e f f i c a c y

H i g h d e m o c r a t i c s a t i s .L o w d e m o c r a t i c s a t i s .

L a s t e l e c t i o n f a i rL a s t e l e c t i o n n o t f a i r

P a r t i e s c a r e 5 0

4 53 7

2 9

4 84 2

3 53 1

234

P a r t i e s d o n ’ t c a r e

P a r t i e s a r e n e c e s s a r y234

2 8

6 25 7

5 55 1

4 23 5

4 0

P a r t i e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r y

0 M o s t L e f t123456

4 95 7

6 35 5

789

1 0 M o s t R i g h t

III Parties as organizationsIII. Parties as organizations

Maurice Duverger – Ideal types– Mass-branch eg German SDP, Norwegian Labour

C d– Caucus-cadre– Militia– Is mass-branch still functional today?Is mass branch still functional today?– Mair: Decline in mass membership

Katz and Mair – The cartel party – fall in mass membership but increased

public subsidies for party finance and staffing– Do members matter?– Do members matter?

Party MembershipParty MembershipMair and Biezen: Official membership figures

Country Year Total Party

Membership

Total Party Membership as

Percentage of Electorate (M/E) Membership Percentage of Electorate (M/E)

Austria 1999 1,031,052 17.66

Finland 1998 400,615 9.65

Norway 1997 242,022 7.31

Greece 1998 600,000 6.77

Belgium 1999 480,804 6.55

Switzerland 1997 293,000 6.38

Sweden 1998 365,588 5.54

Denmark 1998 205,382 5.14

Slovakia 2000 165,277 4.11

Italy 1998 1,974,040 4.05 y

Portugal 2000 346,504 3.99

Czech Republic 1999 319,800 3.94

Spain 2000 1,131,250 3.42

Ireland 1998 86,000 3.14 Ireland 1998 86,000 3.14

Germany 1999 1,780,173 2.93

Netherlands 2000 294,469 2.51

Hungary 1999 173,600 2.15

Trends in older democraciesOfficial membership figures: Mair & Biezen

Change in Change in

Numbers as Country Period Change in

M/E Ratio

Change in Numbers of

Members

Numbers as Percentage of

Original Membership*

France 1978-1999 - 3.48 - 1,122,128 - 64.59 a ce 9 8 999 3. 8 , , 8 6 .59

Italy 1980-1998 - 5.61 - 2,091,887 - 51.54

United Kingdom 1980-1998 - 2.20 - 853,156 - 50.39

Norway 1980-1997 - 8.04 - 218,891 - 47.49

Czech Republic 1993-1999 - 3.10 - 225,200 - 41.32 p ,

Finland 1980-1998 - 6.09 - 206,646 - 34.03

Netherlands 1980-2000 - 1.78 - 136,459 - 31.67

Austria 1980-1999 - 10.82 - 446,209 - 30.21

Switzerland 1977-1997 - 4.28 - 118,800 - 28.85

Sweden 1980-1998 - 2.87 - 142,533 - 28.05

Denmark 1980-1998 - 2.16 - 70,385 - 25.52

Ireland 1980-1998 - 1.86 - 27,856 - 24.47

Belgium 1980-1999 - 2.42 - 136,382 - 22.10

Germany 1980-1999 - 1.59 - 174,967 - 8.95

Hungary 1990-1999 + 0.04 + 8,300 + 5.02

Portugal 1980-2000 - 0.29 + 50,381 + 17.01

Slovakia 1994-2000 + 0.82 + 37,777 + 29.63

Trends in Newer DemocraciesTrends in Newer DemocraciesWVS 1990-2001 –Reported membership

South Africa 7.0 44.1 +D i i R 33 4Dominican Rep 33.4Uruguay 16.2Chile 5.1 15.6 +Brazil 4.9 14.3 +Romania 2.5 11.9 +South Korea 2.6 6.5 11.8 +Argentina 7.9 2.0 10.1 +Philippines 7.8Czech Rep 4.2 6.7 +Slovakia 6.7Bulgaria 13.0 5.7 -Slovenia 3.9 4.7 +E. Germany 11.1 4.1 -El Salvador 3.7Hungary 2.6 3.4 +Latvia 21 0 3 3 -Latvia 21.0 3.3Lithuania 7.6 3.2 -Estonia 8.7 2.0 -Poland 1.1

IV: Party in governmentIV: Party-in-government

Persistence (or even strengthening) of party cohesion in legislative votingg gOnly parties can organize parliaments and government control bureaucracy and administer government, control bureaucracy and administer public policiesParties in government persist unchanged but Parties-in-government persist unchanged but with weaker links to members and voters

ConclusionsConclusions

Parties have declining legitimacy, mixed patterns as organizations, yet persistent strength in g , y p ggovernmentImplications for representative democracy?Implications for representative democracy?Implications for your project research?