1. Interest Aggregation and Political Parties
Comparative Politics
Chapter 5

2. Interest aggregation – the activity where the political demands of people and groups are combined into policy programs. Political skills and resources are used to accomplish this:
Votes
Campaign funds
Political offices
Media access
Armed force

3. Personal Interest Aggregation
Patron-client networks – do something nice for your ‘clients’ (supporters) and they will take care of you (keep you in office)
Feudalism – Lord and the serfs
Boss Tweed – NY political machine
Richard Daley, Sr. – Chicago political machine
President of U.S. – Cabinet, Executive Office, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc.

4. Problem with this is that it usually means the political system it’s in is static – hard to change
U.S. – corrupt politics
Asia – family oriented
Middle East – Tribal/religious orientation
Europe – ethnically oriented (especially eastern Europe)

5. Institutional Interest
As societies have modernized, the patron-client system has evolved into a larger network
Patron-client is the nucleus and this small network spreads out to connect with larger, more powerful/influential networks
This larger connection goes back to the Association Groups from the previous chapter.
The bureaucracy negotiates with interest groups to get policy made and implemented

6. Competitive Party Systems and Interest Aggregation
Political parties – groups or organizations that seek to place candidates in office under their label.
In the competitive system, political parties tend to try to gain electoral support
In other words, the political parties will try to win the support of the various “social” subgroups in order to get their candidate in office

7. Elections
One of the few ways diverse groups of people can express their varying interests equally and comprehensively
Parties generally keep their promises once they are elected
Liberals tend to increase government involvement in daily lives
Conservatives tend to slow down, or decrease the government involvement in daily lives

8. Radical changes that are promised by a party before it comes into power is sometimes not possible as quickly and easily as they promised once they achieve the power.
Even though voters may have supported the concept of change, they may not have realized the consequences involved in such change, thus slowing down the implementation
Also, the parties who are not currently ‘in power’ also still have a say in the policy making process and may still impede the progress/change of the party in power

9. Elections don’t always provide interest aggregation, sometimes, it’s just a social thing
Communist countries only allowing one candidate on the ballot, but making everyone vote

10. Electoral Systems determine
Who can vote
How they vote
How the votes are counted
Single-member District
Plurality – you don’t need a majority (51%) to win, you just need the most votes
Common in the U.S. in many local elections
Not valid in national and some state level postitions

11. Proportional Representation
Majority Runoff/Double Ballot
1st voting narrows down the candidates
2nd voting gets a winner with a majority
Exceptions can occur if a candidate gets the required majority (51%) in the 1st voting
Proportional Representation
The country is divided into large districts and each district gets to elect a lot of representatives (sometimes 20-30)

12. The people vote for their favorite candidates
The parties whose candidates receive a minimum percentage of votes get to send their winners to the legislature. If a party doesn’t get the minimum, then they may have some aspects of their people unrepresented
Primary Elections
Parties offer their top candidates and let the voters choose who will run for office against the candidates from the other parties

13. Closed-list proportional representation
Elected officials choose from their top and the voters have no say about who their candidates might be
Open-list
Voters do get to make choices of their favorites from a list of candidates. Those with the most votes may get to run

14. Patterns of Electoral Competition
Duverger’s Law – there is a systemiatic relationship between electoral systems and party systems
Plurality single-member districts tend to create two-party systems
Proportional representation generates multi-party systems
How does this happen?
Mechanical effect – the way that different electoral systems convert votes into seats
Psychological effect voters and candidates anticipate the mechanical effect
Voters may not throw support behind candidates they feel are hopeless
Voting for the next best option or the one that will cause the ‘least damage’ is called strategic voting

15. Down’s Median Voter Result
Political parties will try to modify their stand on various issues to win the support of the median voter
Two-party systems have a convergence to the center to try to win these median voters
In the U.S. there are Republicans who flirt with the left and Democrats who flirt with the right.

16. Competitive Parties in Government
It helps get policies passed if a party wins the majority in the legislative and has control of the executive.
This works better in single party districts
In pluralities, a party may win control without the majority of the support because of how the seats are distributed to the winner.
Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had less than 50% of the popular vote but them and their party got control.
Sometimes, parties will combine to gain control
The recent elections in Britain that brought David Cameron in as Prime Minister

17. Aggregation of Interests when coalitions form has costs and benefits
The elite determine gov’t policy, and the people feel left out
Voters are often discourage by this because they feel their vote doesn’t count
When there is a coalition, sometimes the interests of a minority party can be used in negotiations, getting them a policy they may want but might not have gotten had a party gained a clear majority

18. Cooperation and Conflict in Competitive Party Systems
Majoritarian two-party systems
Dominated by two parties (U.S.)
Have two dominant parties and election laws usually create legislative majorities for one of them (Britain)
Majority coalition systems
Parties form preelectoral coalitions so that voters know which parties will attempt to work together for form the policies (Germany & France)
Multiparty systems
Election laws can party systems that virtually ensure that no single party wins a legislative majority and no traditional of preelection coalitions

19. Party antagonism/polarization
Consensual party system
The parties commanding most of the legislative seats are not to far apart on policies and have a reasonable amount of trust in each other and in the political system
Conflictual party system
The legislature is dominated by parties that are far apart on issues or are antagonistic toward each other and the political system
Consociational/Accomodative system
Party systems in which political leaders are able to bridge the intense differences between antagonistic voters through power-sharing, broad coalitions, and decentralization of sensitive decisions to the separate social groups (Christians and Muslims in Lebanon)

20. Authoritarian Party Systems
Aggregation takes place
Within the party
In interactions with
Business groups
Unions
Landowners
Institutional groups in the bureaucracy
Military
Elections are sham to make people think they are included

21. Exclusive Governing Parties
Totalitarian
One party
Top-down control of society
No opposition parties or interest groups
Legitimacy is provided by clear ideology
Failed Totalitarian governments
USSR
Eastern Europe
Working totalitarian governments
North Korea
Cuba

22. Demise of totalitarianism
China – mixed and confusing
Government no longer controls the economy
Government still prohibits mass organization against it’s legitimacy
Demise of totalitarianism
Greed for power distorts original ideology
Limited government ability to control society
Loss of confidence in Communism

23. Inclusive Governing Parties
Ethnic and tribal authoritarian
Usually succeed because they are inclusive
Recognize autonomy of
Social
Cultural
Economic groups
Bargain with these groups instead of controlling and remaking them
Examples:
Kenya
Tanzania

24. Authoritarian Corporatist Systems
Allow formation of interest groups
Groups bargain with each other
Groups bargain with the government
Do not allow political resources directly to the people
They sometimes allow opposition parties if they are no real threat to the control
Electoral Authoritarianism
Façade of democracy that doesn’t really challenge the gov’t
Some political opposition
Independent media
Social Organizations
Example: Mexican PRI

25. These governments often are born in the fight against colonialism and begin to dissipate after the leaders die or retire
Memories of struggle for independence fade
Ideology weakens
Worldwide spread of democracy causes people to question the legitimacy of a single party.

26. Military & Interest Aggregation
Military Government
When civilian governments cannot control society, the military often gets control by default
Military has a monopoly on coercive actions to maintain control of society
After the military takes over
May support a tyrant
May try to use their power to further controlling party ideology

27. Major limitations of military interest aggregation
When the military has taken over they sometimes try to set up a bureaucratic version of authoritarian corporatism
Link organized groups with them (the military as the final say in arbitration)
Major limitations of military interest aggregation
Their internal structure is not designed for interest aggregation
They are not set up for
Aggregation of internal differences
Building compromises
Mobilizing popular support
Communications with social groups outside of the military
Military control is often linked with other institutions and may withdraw from control once another, more stable government is established

28. Trends in Interest Aggregation

29. 1980s we saw the trend toward democracy in Eastern Europe
1990s African nations began to move toward democracy
After , we have seen a move toward democracy in the Middle East
Algeria
Tunisia
Egypt

30. Significance of Interest Aggregation
Successful public policy depends on effective interest aggregation
Narrow policy options so citizen demands are converted into a few policy alternatives
May eliminate some policies in the process
Competitive Party Systems narrow down and combine policy preferences by through elections
Voters support the party that has their preferences
Unpopular preferences are then eliminated by the majority

31. Noncompetitive Party Systems, military gov’ts and monarchies aggregation can determine policy
Authoritarian and military governments may just decide the program
Legislative assemblies, military councils or party politburos may have to negotiate policies
How well a government aggregates is the final determining factor in it’s adaptability and stability