Lecture 2.1 Party Types

1
Lecture 2.1Party Types

• Political Science 301

2
Party Types Typologies

• Focus on organization
• How do parties relate to a) society and b) the
  state?
• Helpful in identifying the evolution of parties
• Parties evolve their organizations in response to
  changes in their external environment
• Societal changes (ie Development of a middle
  class)
• Electoral Regime changes (ie Expanding the
  franchise)

3
Duverger Cadre Parties (1860-1920)

• Burke Groups of men in pursuit of the public
  interest
• Elite dominated. Membership is restricted
• No need for entrenched organization or much of an
  organizational at all
• Dispersed, not centralized
• Relied on large donations

4
Duverger Mass Parties (1880-1950)

• Related to expansion of the franchise
• Social groups are represented in the programmes
  of mass parties - relies on input from social
  groups represented in the membership
• Extensive membership organizations and
  labour-intensive campaigns. Members have
  significant responsibilities.
• More about mobilization than conversion
• Relies on membership dues rather than on big
  contributions

5
Kircheimer Catch-All Parties (1950-present)

• An Americanization of parties
• Less attached to entrenches bases of support
• Less need for entrenched membership organization
  (although they exist)
• Members face fewer restraints than with mass
  parties
• More capital-intensive
• Professionalization and modernization of
  campaigning
• Voters are viewed as consumers rather than
  adherents

6
Katz Mair Cartel Parties (1950 - Present)

• Professional, modern, centralized organizations
• Capital-Intensive
• Rely on the state for financial support
• No need for mass organization. The party
  organization is more open to the wider populace,
  less obligations placed on members.

7
Business-Firm Parties? 1990-Present

• Political entrepreneurs use these parties as
  personal vehicles
• A recent European phenomenon
• Not present in North America?

8
Application to Canada

• How do these models apply to Canada?
• Elite Parties?
• Mass Parties?
• Catch-All Parties?
• Cartel Parties?

9
Canadian Variants Brokerage Parties

• Are brokerage parties just catch-all parties?
• Parties that are agents of social integration
  rather than social division
• A moral element
• Siegfried Social divisions are muffled in order
  to preserve the integrity of the state.

10
Canadian Variants Franchise Parties

• Carty (UBC professor!) working in the
  stratarchical tradition
• Loose organizational structure, relative autonomy
  for the different components of the party
  organization
• The Accord or The Old Franchise Bargain
• Central Party Establish a party brand
• Local Parties Tailor the party brand to local
  tastes and muster the resources necessary to
  conduct local election campaigns
• Question How are franchise parties particularly
  well adapted to Canadas state institutions?
  Hint Electoral system

11
The Evolution of Party Types

• Party Development is a dialectical process
• Different party types may refer to the same
  parties at different stages of development
• Therefore How are the party types linked to one
  another?

12
External influences on organizational evolution

• Cadre Parties Response to a limited franchise,
  elite politics
• Mass Parties Response to the enlargement of the
  franchise, new politicized social groups (class)
• Catch-All Parties Response to decline of social
  groups, new campaign technology
• Cartel Parties Response to public funding of
  parties, decline of partisan alignments and in
  party membership.

13
Problems with Party Types

• What do you think?
• Not always conceptually clear, rigorous, or
  comparable
• Categories not mutually exclusive or exhaustive
• Discussion Question Parties are complex
  multi-faceted organizations. Whats the point of
  thinking in terms of types and categories?

14
Lecture 2.2Party Systems

• Political Science 301

15
Party Systems

• Prerequisite to the scientific study of any
  subject is the creation of typologies. A
  discipline must pass through a natural history
  stage in which it clearly distinguishes between
  its objects of study and discovers regularities
  between them before it becomes a fully developed
  science devoted to explaining rather than
  describing. Unfortunately political science too
  often has been satisfied to employ superficial
  classification schemes instead of labouring to
  devlop fecund taxonomies. For example, political
  scientists have merely labelled party systems
  one, two or multi- and have not even defined
  these terms precisely.
• Jorgen Rasmussen, 1967

16
Definition Importance

• Political parties competing with each other for
  elective office and control of government form a
  party system.
• Party systems are one key to a more scientific
  comparative politics
• Party systems are easily comparable. Weve gone
  from simplistic classifications with few cases to
  complex classifications with many cases

17
Distinct Features of Party Systems

• Number of Parties
• Relative Size and Strength of Parties
• Number of issue dimensions on which they compete

18
Number of Parties

• How many parties are in the system?
• How do we count them?
• Competitive
• Does the party meet a certain threshold? How can
  that threshold be defended?
• Coalition potential
• Could the party make a coalition government
  possible?
• Blackmail potential
• Able to block the formation of certain coalitions

19
Relative Strength and Size of Parties I
20
Relative Strength and Size of Parties II

• Relying on the number of relevant parties can be
  misleading.
• Take into account the relative strength and size
  of the party
• Blondel Average share of the vote won by the
  largest two parties, then consider the ratio of
  the first partys vote share to the second and
  third parties.

21
Relative Strength Size of Parties III
Effective Number of Parties

• Continuous Measure Effective Number of Parties
  (Either elective or parliamentary)
• Takes both number of parties and relative
  strengths of the parties into account
• Nv 1 / ? si2
• 2006 Election
• 3.75 1 / 0.362 0.302 0.102 0.172 0.052

22
Relative Strength Size of Parties IV Effective
Number of Parties

• But the effective number of parties needs
  interpretation.
• What does it mean to have 3.75 effective parties?
• Where there are roughly 2 effective parties, does
  that necessarily mean that theres a two-party
  system?
• In addition, the effective number of parties has
  some quirks that need to be dealt with

23
Number of Issue Dimensions

• Party competition revolves around salient issue
  dimensions
• How many issue dimensions exist and how is this
  related to the nature of the party system
• BC 1975 until 2001 One dominant issue dimension
  and two competitive parties.

24
Method Issues

• Categories versus Continuous Variables
• Two-Party System or 2.46 effective parties
• Simplicity and Parsimony
• Three categories or eight categories?
• Keep these issues in mind when evaluating
  different typologies of party systems

25
Blondels Typology

• One of the first to consider the relative size
  and strength of parties
• Two-Party (U.S., U.K., Australia)
• Two-and-a-half Party (Canada)
• Maybe three parties, but the parties strength is
  imbalanced
• Multi-Party with a Predominant Party (Sweden)
• Multi-Party without a Predominant Party (France,
  Netherlands)

26
Sartoris Typology

• Distinguishes between systems on the basis of
  polarization and whether the system is
  centripetal or centrifugal. Do parties pull
  competitive toward the center or the fringes?
• Relevance Coalition of blackmail potential
• Four categories
• Predominant
• Two-Party
• Moderate Pluralism Multi-Party Centripetal
• Parties compete for votes in the center
• Polarized Pluralism Multi-Party Centrifugal
• Anti-system parties compete for votes in
  mainstream parties

27
Siaroffs Typology

• Aim is to refine (or disaggregate) moderate
  pluralism
• Categorizes according to the number of parties
  and relative balance amongst parties
• Two-Party
• Two-and-a-half Party
• Moderate Multi-Party with One Dominant Party
• Moderate Multi-Party with Two Main Parties
• Moderate Multi-Party with Balance Among Main
  Parties
• Extreme Multiparty with one dominant party
• Extreme Multiparty with Two Main parties
• Extreme Multiparty with balance among the parties
• Question Why are these distinctions important?

28
Post-Merger Canada (2006)

• Old Fashioned Multi-Party System
• Blondel Multi-Party System without a Predominant
  Party
• Sartori Moderate Pluralism?
• Siaroff Moderate Multi-Party System With Two
  Main Parties?
• Effective Number of Elective Parties 3.75

29
Why care about classifying party systems?

• Done well, party system classifications point to
  distinctive features of electoral politics in
  different states
• Wolinetz Key is to focus on the interrelations
  between parties. What is the nature of these
  interrelations? How complex are they?
• Number of parties
• Presence of a dominant party or relative equality
• Polarizations
• Number of issue dimensions separating the parties
• Think about the depth of comparison.

30
What effects the number of parties present? I

• Institutional Arrangements
• Duverger The logic of the electoral system
  shapes the type of party systems that arise
• PR/Multi-Member Districts -gt Multi-Party Systems
• No mechanical or psychological effects
• Plurality Systems/Single-Member Districts -gt
  Two-Party Systems
• Mechanical effects
• Psychological effects

31
What effects the number of parties present? II

• Issue Dimensions
• The number of issue dimensions shapes the number
  of parties
• Effective number of parties Number of Issue
  Dimensions 1
• Think about BC

32
Canadian Party Systems

• Carty Party systems are an important component
  of understanding Canadas political development
• Stay tuned!