Comparative approaches to the parties Flashcards
Why is it rational for US parties do be broad umbrella parties
Given the diversity of the US, it makes rational sense for the main parties to be inclusive in their composition and approach, even despite recent trends towards polarisation and hyper partisanship. To win national office in the US, the parties need to assemble a wide coalition of supporters and voting blocs. For instance Ds meed to reach out to environmentalits and the Rs need to reach out the poor whites in the south
How can the rational approach explain the lack of small parties in the US
Given that it is rational for parties to be broad coalitions, it means that it is harder for smaller parties to find their niche and there is less of an incentive for voters to vote for them
It is not rational for voters in either country to cast a wasted vote for a smaller party given the majoritarian electoral system
How does the rational approach explain why it is unlikely that the national electoral system will change in either system
The major parties have a rational interest in not changing the current majoritarian system, as this perpetuates a two party system
Why is it more rational for UK voters to vote for smaller parties
Because local mayoral elections use SV and devolved parliament elections use either AMS or STV. This means that small party candidates can actually be successful. For instance, independent candidate Andy Preston was elected mayor of Middlesborough in 2019, defeating both of the big 2 candidates
Why is it important to use the cultural approach when analysing the differences in party systems
Because the party systems are very different despite the fact that that the electoral systems are the same, so perhaps this can be explained culturally
How can we use the cultural approach to explain this
Partly the result of changing UK culture and the growth of nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, as well as the Euroscepticism that facilitated the rise of UKIP and the Brexit parties. This has meant that especially in the regions, politics has become a more multi party affair
Each party of the UK has a distinct national culture. The troubles in NI boosted support for nationalist parties in the province and split the unionists from the conservative party. Devolution in Scotland and Wales led to increased support for nationalist parties in both countries
How are the two nations different in terms of cultural autonomy
The need for cultural autonomy is inherent in the UK as a whole as well as the regions as was expressed by the fear of losing sovereignty to the EU. This culminated in the rise of Euroscepticism in both of the big 2, the growth of UKIP, and the 2016 Brexit vote. Demonstrated that belief in nationalist autonomy was culturally stronger in the UK than belief in supranationality
By contrast the US is arguably so culturally diverse and vast that cultural autonomy is subsumed by a wider allegiance to the US as a nation. Infact that motto of the US is ‘out of the many, one’. Americans may hold strongly divergent views about what direction their nation should take, but only a small minority hold separatist or secessionist views. There is no desire for nationalist parties in the US, which in turn limits the scope of third parties
How do structures in both countries reinforce the nature of their party systems
The majoritarian FPTP electoral system dominant in both countries reinforces two party dominance
How can we use the structural approach to explain differences in party systems
There are differences such as the use of AMS and STV in the devolved parliaments, and this has led to a multi party system. All state legislatures in the US are elected using a majoritarian system so two party dominance remains the norm here too
How can we use the structural approach to explain the lack of third parties in the US
The US primary system reinforces two party dominance by offering ordinary voters a choice within and between parties. This removes the incentive for running as an independent or third party candidate, when one can instead run as a moderate D or R. There is far less opening for a centrist party in between the big 2 like the Lib Dems in the US as a result
How can we use the structural approach to explain why party loyalty is more prevelant in the UK
In the US the structure of elections means that candidates have to tailor their policies to their personal electorate, since their personal record pays a considerable role in the elections and this is especially true for the house. In the UK elections are more concerned with national politics and their personal record is less important. This inclines candidates to party loyalty
How do the differing structures lead to a more even balance of power between the parties in the US
The separation of powers mean different parties can control the executive and legislature, whereas the fusion of powers in the UK means that the party that controls the legislature also controls the executive
How does the rational approach lend itself to two party dominance in the US and UK
Rationally it makes sense for parties to accommodate factions and a certain degree of internal tension. While openly divided parties do not win elections neither do the ideologically pure. By accommodating a wide range of views within their ranks, parties can appeal to a wide cross section of voters. It makes rational sense of the politically ambitious to work within the existing parties rather than set up their own. The fate of previous attempts to create new parties feeds this assessment. Change UK only existed for 10 months in 2019 and the gang of 4 who left the Labour party to start the Social Democratic Party had to merge with the Liberal Party in 1988 anyway. It is inconceivable that any member of congress would do this given the cultural dominance of the big 2. Even outsiders like Sanders and Trumo seek the nominations of the one the big 2 rather than standing as independents
How does the cultural approach explain party factions in the two systems
In both, the main parties have always had internal disputes and factions. For decades until the advent of the CRA and its consequences, the Ds were a somewhat uneasy coalition of conservative pro-segregationist southerners
