POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Russell Alan Williams

PART II:POLITICAL PARTICIPATION & BEHAVIOR Unit Six: Political Parties Required Reading: Mintz, Chapter 7. Outline: 1. Introduction 2. Types of Parties 3. Party Systems Ideological Competition Structure of Competition 4. Modern Organization

Mid Term Exam – In Class Oct 25 Required Reading: Mintz, Chapters 1-7. Focus on the “key concepts” covered in class and defined in the margins of the text Outline: Multiple choice section: Help Website: Short answer section: Define the concept in your own words Tip: A good answer should include an example to illustrate the concept You will have to answer six out of seven

1) Introduction: “Political Parties”: Organizations that play central role in competition for electoral office Members fill positions in legislature and executive Often no “constitutional” role & limited regulation

Traditional functions: Recruit candidates Ensure voter turnout “Organize the vote” E.g. Platforms are like a “menu” to choose from Ensure government accountability – meaning ?????

Commonly seen as harmful to democracy? Purveyors of corruption and patronage? Impede the “will of the people” = undermine accountability =Theme: Are parties in “crisis”?

2) Types of Parties: “ Cadre Party ” :Focused on electing members to legislature, but are loosely organized Oldest form – emerged from cooperation amongst a “ Parliamentary Party ” – 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 ”

“Mass Party”: Large parties organized based on regular financial contributions from the public. 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

Key differences: Mass parties are “ideological” Mass parties – ordinary members choose leaders Challenges: Can a cadre party survive consistent defeats? Can a mass party maintain links to the public? “Iron Law of Oligarchy”: Belief that over times all organizations are gradually dominated by small group of leaders

Other types of parties: “Brokerage Party”: Party that tries to appeal to broad elements of society by accommodating interests of different groups Promise benefits to different groups Canadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special interests Examples?

Other types of parties: “Brokerage Party”: Party that tries to appeal to broad elements of society by accommodating interests of different groups Promise benefits to different groups Canadian type of cadre party? = Coalitions of special interests Examples? =The Liberal Party of Canada

New forms of parties: “Electoral-Professional Party”: Dominant concern is winning elections. Relies on professional experts to “market” the party to voters Implication: Focus on leaders & style over ideology Examples????????? Same as “brokerage party”? 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 filling their role if we choose based on the qualities of the leaders etc.??????

Other types of parties: “Programmatic Party”: Party organized around distinct ideological perspective and policy goals. E.g. Green Parties/the “CCF”(?) Harder to judge in systems where smaller parties are never “in” government “Personalistic Party”: Party established to promote a particular leader E.g. French “Gaullist’s” Nationalist or Regional Parties: Parties that focus on interest of specific area or group Can have a big impact on outcomes, but rarely “win” elections

3) Party Systems: “Party Systems”: Pattern of competition amongst parties in different jurisdictions a) Structure of ideological competition ”Left-Right continuum” – common way to think about party completion

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 professional parties fit?

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, Communist countries, Alberta and Newfoundland(?) “Two Party System”: Two major competitive parties Normal in “SMP” – US, Australia, UK, most Canadian Provinces

“Two-Plus Party System”: Two competitive parties plus some extra “effective” parties Germany, Ontario “Multiparty System” Several parties are “significant” in the struggle for power. Italy, France, places where there is “PR”. Question: Where does Canada fit?

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

6) Modern Organization: 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

Local candidate selection - Either by: Local “ constituency association ” Party leader “ Parachute candidates ” – party insiders and “ star ” recruits Party nomination is key – independents do not get elected! In SMP candidate elections (nomination battles) often more important than elections... –E.g. “ safe seats ”

“ Party Caucus ” : Organization/meeting of all the party ’ s parliamentary members Closed meetings to discuss strategy Ensures “ party discipline ” Members must 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 dominance ” in parliamentary system

Party Finance: High risk of corruption and inequality 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 $ , individuals at $5, –Parties receive gov ’ t funding = $1.75 for each vote Now?

6) For next time: Tuesday: Mid term Exam! Thursday: Unit Seven: Elections Required Reading: Mintz, Chapter 8.