Comparative Politics - Electoral systems

Question 1

Structural aspects of the electoral system - terms of office

Answer 1

• Both the UK and the US set limited terms for elected offices, such as 6 years for a Senator and 5 years for an MP
• Congress and President term lengths are fixed in the constitution; arguments to extend the House term would take constitutional amendment but would be beneficial to create a long-term perspective on policy and lessen ‘constant campaigning’
• An Act of Parliament can extend an MPs term - under the Septennial Act in 1716, a parliament could last up to 7 years, reduced to 5 years in the 1911 Parliament Act
• No Prime Minister term length, 2 term Presidency in 22nd amendment - Blair and Thatcher both served for over 10 years

Question 2

Structural aspects of the electoral system - elections and elected posts

Answer 2

• Both countries elected national legislatures and local councils, but the list of elected offices and ballot initiatives is much longer in the USA
• In the USA, primary elections are used, a system not tried in the UK aside from some polls after the 2009 MP scandal to elect Conservative MPs
• Caucuses and primaries are universal in the USA, with elected officials ranging from mayors, to school board officials, sheriffs and even state judges - only police and crime commissioners and London and Manchester mayors are directly elected
• Regular state-level elections for the governor and state legislature, with these latter posts coming with significant powers and significance due to federal frameworks
• Devolution is the only similarity to this system of federalism in the UK, adding other elections of importance to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Question 3

Structural aspects of the electoral system - electoral systems

Answer 3

• Both countries use majoritarian or FPTP systems for the legislature
  However, until 2020, the UK also used other electoral systems for European Parliament elections including the additional members system (AMS) and single transferable vote (STV) - coalition and minority is therefore the norm in devolved assemblies, something not apparent at any level in the USA

Question 4

The rational aspect of elections and electoral systems - policies for natural supporters

Answer 4

• Cultural and structural differences impact on campaign strategies and paths parties take to maximise election success

Policies for natural supporters:
- Parties and candidates in both countries appeal to core voters with policies that resonate with natural supporters; right wing parties promise to tighten immigration e.g. Mexican Border Wall under Trump and reducing net migration in the UK was a policy of Cameron in 2010, and Johnson talked of a points based immigration system in 2019 to reduce unskilled immigrants
- Left wing parties focus more on social justice and reducing poverty; Labour in 2019 promised to abolish Universal Credit to end poverty through minimum standards of living, the 2020 Democratic platform talked of an economy rigged against working families even before COVID-19 whilst the rich grew their wealth five times faster than the bottom 90% of the population; echoes of Corbyn’s mantra ‘For the many not the few’

Question 5

Rational aspects of the electoral system - the use of social media and leader qualities

Answer 5

Use of social media:
- Increasing use of social media in both countries to send targeted ads to potential supporters, with the 2019 election campaign in the UK seeing UK parties use gender specific ads; many Labour ads targeted females about compensating ‘Waspi’ women affected by a change to the state pension age (seen more than 3 million times, only by women aged 55 and over)
- Same pattern in the USA; first 8 months of 2019 during the early stages of the re-election campaign, Trump’s team posted 2,000 Facebook ads to name immigration an ‘invasion’

Leader qualities:
- Personal skills and qualities of their candidates/leaders to secure victory in the USA are emphasised - Trump was skilled as a ‘dealmaker’
- Similarly, in the UK, Johnson’s experience as a two-term London Mayor were frequently touted by campaign teams

Question 6

Rational aspects of electoral systems - marginal constituencies

Answer 6

• Play a vital part in determining final election outcomes, with a survey of campaign visits by party leaders during the 2019 campaign revealing that 36 of 61 constituencies visited by Johnson were marginals and the corresponding figure for Corbyn was 58 out of 76
• A similar pattern can be seen in the USA, where in 2020, despite the unique circumstances of the pandemic, Biden made 40% of his campaign visits to the Midwest Rust belt states including 16 to Pennsylvania alone, with Trump using similar tactics

Question 7

Rational aspects of electoral systems - differences between the systems

Answer 7

• While elections campaigns in both countries frequently criticised the shortcomings of their opponents, the attacks are more personal and brutal in the USA; Trump had rallies chant ‘Lock her up’ being a new high in personal political assaults
• Campaigns are full of adverts and pamphlets that denigrate political rivals, such as the slogan ‘If you liked Hitler, you’ll like Wallace’ in the 1968 campaign
• Also, because of the importance of midterms, far more time, moey and focus is devoted in the USA to campaigning between presidential elections, with control over Congress being maintained over midterms being crucial in improving chances of the executive delivering on promises that involve legislation such as healthcare reform and tax cuts
• In contrast, in the UK general elections remain the focal point of most electioneering, exect for relatively infrequent referendums on controversial topics such as Brexit and Scottish independence; national referendums are not provided in the US Constitution, and direct democracy is entirely state based

Question 8

Cultural aspects of electoral systems - personalities

Answer 8

• US elections have long been dominated by personalities as much as parties, mainly due to the more individualistic nature of US society and culture; in the UK, however, elections are more party focused than personalised
• This is partly due to the presidential system, which emphasises personal qualities and skills of candidates and their own personal vision for the nation; 2020 was Trump’s slogans, 1932 was FDR’s New Deal
• The UK is not entirely different however - in 1945, Churchill campaigned on his personal record as a wartime leader, and Thatcher and Blair ran personalised campaigns; May used ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and Johnson used ‘Get Brexit done’ - run on a platform of how their personality can tackle the current issue
• Televised debates between presidential candidates and party leaders also emphasise a focus on personalities, but they are a much more recent feature (2010) in the UK compared to the USA, where the first debate was in 1960
• The structure of the debates also differs slightly, with a variety of formats in the UK usually including the leaders of parties other than Labour and Conservative - third parties and independents are largely excluded from debates such as this in the US, with the only exception being Ross Perot in the 1992 debates - there are also VP debates, which do not exist in the UK

Question 9

Cultural aspects of electoral systems - personalities

Answer 9

• US elections have long been dominated by personalities as much as parties, mainly due to the more individualistic nature of US society and culture; in the UK, however, elections are more party focused than personalised
• This is partly due to the presidential system, which emphasises personal qualities and skills of candidates and their own personal vision for the nation; 2020 was Trump’s slogans, 1932 was FDR’s New Deal
• The UK is not entirely different however - in 1945, Churchill campaigned on his personal record as a wartime leader, and Thatcher and Blair ran personalised campaigns; May used ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and Johnson used ‘Get Brexit done’ - run on a platform of how their personality can tackle the current issue
• Televised debates between presidential candidates and party leaders also emphasise a focus on personalities, but they are a much more recent feature (2010) in the UK compared to the USA, where the first debate was in 1960
• The structure of the debates also differs slightly, with a variety of formats in the UK usually including the leaders of parties other than Labour and Conservative - third parties and independents are largely excluded from debates such as this in the US, with the only exception being Ross Perot in the 1992 debates - there are also VP debates, which do not exist in the UK

Question 10

Cultural aspects of electoral systems - candidate selection

Answer 10

• US uses primaries and caucuses, becoming fundamental in the last 50 years
• UK selection is limited to party members and although voters usually participate, party representatives largely self-select - leaders are selected within parties but MPs are selected by the public
  Since the progressive era the USA has had much broader opportunities for the public to get involved

Question 11

Cultural aspects of electoral systems - voting behaviour

Answer 11

• Highlights important cultural differences; in both countries, youth voters favour left-wing progressive parties, with the 2017 UK election having a 33% gap between the Labour and Conservative voting for 18-29 year olds; even when the gap was smaller in 2019, Labour still won the majority of the youth vote despite doing a lot worse in the election overall
• Age is significant as a voting behaviour predicate in the USA, with the 2018 midterm exit polls showing 68% of 18-24 year olds choosing to Democrat, which is a group credited in boosting the overall turnout figure and securing Democrat House gains, a pattern repeated in the 2020 presidential election
• Younger voters opt for more liberal / left wing parties because of policies in areas such as education tuition fees and because of liberal immigration policies - both Brexit and the Mexican border wall were linked to concerns on large-scale immigration
• How the youth in each country votes is also affected by other factors, such as religion; in the UK, there is not as much as a ‘religious right’ voting bloc as the US, with issues such as abortion and gay marriage being more low-key and less partisan in the UK, a reflection of the more secular character of the country
• Race is also another factor - in both countries, ethnic minorities favour Labour/Democrat, but this is more pronounced in the US - also, given the pronounced ethnic diversity, mobilising the minority vote is arguably more important in states such as a significant Hispanic vote
• In terms of household income differences also emerge although after the 2019 election these are perhaps diminishing and wealth areas in Home Counties were safe Tory areas - there was a breakthrough in 2019 with Tory acquirement of South Yorkshire and County Durham that were economically poor but not ethically diverse
• This corresponds to the US, with longer-established patterns of the poorest and least ethically diverse areas being Republican strongholds, such as the Deep South, as a populist message of patriotism combined with ‘taking back control’ appeals to these areas
• By contrast, both Conservatives and Republicans are finding it harder to win wealthy middle class suburban seats, or those with a large number of well-educated voters who often have a more cosmopolitan and globalist

Question 12

The operation of a two party system - similarities

Answer 12

• Both cover a range of views, described as internal coalitions. Differences are frequently ideological.
• Either can be accurately labelled as conservative or progressive. E.g Conservatives and Republicans favour lower taxes and tighter immigration policies.
• Both exhibit internal party rebellions and revolts- a reflection of the broad spectrum of ideas and policy positions. In the 2020 Labour Leadership contest, Rebecca Long-Bailey was considered heir to Corbyn while Sir Keir Starmer was seen as more centrist.
• Both in favour of retaining the current electoral system because it greatly aids their dominance in parliament/ Congress (over-rewards them at the expense of third parties and independents.

Question 13

The operation of the two party system - differences

Answer 13

• Issues causing division between the parties differ on either side of the Atlantic. E.g Within Tories up to 2019 was Leave/Remain, while in the USA the main republican divides are foreign policy and trade.
  Conservatives more socially progressive than Republicans on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Conservatives strongly support the NHS, while no Republican would favour ‘a socialised healthcare system’. Democrats remain more to the right than Labour, although the 2020 election of Keir Starmer propelled them more to the centre.
• The UK parties have been more ideologically distinct for longer, whereas in the US, this is more recent.
• Party unity in the legislature generally remains lower in the USA than the UK, however 2015-2019 saw considerable internal divides in both UK parliamentary parties. 2016: Corbyn lost a vote of confidence in Labour, 2018-2019: Theresa May faced large scale backbench revolts for Brexit.
• This is increasing in the USA, e.g in congress with no House Republicans and only two House democrats breaking party ranks in the Trump impeachment vote.
• Dominance of the central or national party is much weaker in the US, due to size and diversity of the country.
• In some elections (mainly European and for devolved assemblies) Labour and Conservative compete under the same electoral systems, hence neither are dominant to the same extent. The Scottish Parliament is dominated by three not two parties, with no US comparison.

Question 14

Cultural, rational and structural theories in relation to the operation of a two-party system

Answer 14

1) Culturally: both countries have historically been accustomed to two-party dominance. More pronounced in the USA, but a long-standing feature of at least Westminster politics, aside from the overshadowing of Labour over the Liberals in the 1920s, and the 2010-2015 coalition. Conveyed in seating arrangements. Sense of a single main opposition party. (‘Her Majesty’s Official Opposition’)

2) Rationally: two-party dominance translates into the main parties seeking to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Large parties by their very nature cannot be narrow and niche. Especially in the US, votes for third parties are seen as wasted votes, encouraging voters to plump for one of the main parties, often regarded as the lesser of two evils.

3) Structure - a two party system is natural in a majoritarian structure, as the only way to gain dominance is to have a large party, which often leads to two opposing parties that clash with one another - especially in the UK, the existence of an Official Opposition suggests a need for a two-party system. Not constitutionally established, but the system began with two parties and consistently in US politics there are 2 sides.

Question 15

A comparison of party policies in the UK and USA - Conservatives and Republicans

Answer 15

Conservatives and Republicans - similarities
- Lower taxes for both businesses and individuals: in 2018, Trump cut income and the corporate tax rate, which was lowered from 35% to 21%. Indeed, Republican president George H. W. Bush’s breaking of his promise ‘Watch my lips, no new taxes’ is widely credited as being a major factor in hsi 1992 election defeat. In the UK, recent Conservative prime ministers have also sought to cut taxes where possible. Thatcher reduced the top rate of income tax from 83% to 60% in 1980 and then to 40% in 1989. More recently, in 2012 then chancellor George Osborne abolished the 50p tax rate on earning over £150,000, and since 2010 the Tories have cut corporation tax from 28% to just 19%. Both parties agree that lower taxes promote innovation and productivity, and that wealth will ‘trickle down’ to benefit all sectors of society.
- Strong armed forces: in Trump’s first time the military budget leapt from just over $600 billion to around $700 billion, as part of his pledge to ‘rebuild’ the USA’s military strength. While the UK budget has not seen anything like the same growth, the Conservatives were strongly committed to the renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine programme and retention of the nuclear deterrent.

Question 16

A comparison of party policies in the UK and USA - Conservatives and Republicans cont.

Answer 16

• Strong nation state: Trump came to power partly on an ‘America First’ platform and sought to push for better trade deals, especially with China. The same enthusiasm for the nation state can be seen in the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives, and a desire to ‘bring back control’ from the EU in areas such as immigration and fishing policy. Both parties also share a wariness of international bodies: the Conservatives with the EU, and Republicans with the UN and the World Health Organisation, both of which had their funding cut under Trump.
• The importance of individual freedom, not least in the sense of ‘shrinking the state’: Reagan famously quipped in a speech ‘The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’. Similar language can also be found in Thatcher’s promise to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’. Both seek to decry what is often portrayed and parodied as the ‘nanny state’. Yet in office and in times of crisis, both Republicans and Conservatives have expanded the surveillance state in the interests of national security following terrorist attacks. This can be seen in the USA through the Patriot Act 2001 passed by George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, and in the UK via the Counter-Terrorism and Border security Act 2019. These examples suggest that for Conservatives in politics, there must be a compromise between individual liberty and defence of the nation.
  Abandoning fiscal prudence in times of crisis: Both parties desire to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest min society and make the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes. The 2019 Labour manifesto contained a pledge

Question 17

A comparison of party policies in the UK and USA - Labour and Democrats

Answer 17

• Reducing the economic gap - both parties want to make the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes, with the 2019 Labour manifesto pledging to introduce a new 45% income tax rate starting at £80,000 a year and 50% starting at £125,000 - Democrat platform in 2020 contained the pledge to make the wealthy pay higher taxes
• Better public services for all - both parties have a strong commitment to improving public services for all, but especially the poorest - Blair and ‘Education, education, education’ and Obamacare
• International cooperation - on foreign policy, both can be seen as being enthusiastic about global bodies and internationalism, with the bulk of Labour being pro-EU and Obama used a multilateral approach in the hope of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, rejecting Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ terminology and looked to build better relations
• Multiculturalism - both parties are open to and positive about the benefits of a diverse society and less focus on cutting immigration; Democrats and Labour focus on inclusivity and tolerance, and each has the support of ethnic minorities (esp. Democrats and African Americans, and in 2019 Labour had 64% of the votes of ethnic minority groups) and Democrats have been strong supporters of the Civil Rights movement, and Labour has long promoted racial equality measures, passing the original Race Relations Act in 1965 (however, more immigrants were deported under Obama than Bush)

Question 18

Areas of difference - Policy

Answer 18

Policy - Rep. are more socially conservative, with Cameron bringing in same-sex marriage; the ‘religious right’ is strong amongst Republicans, and have more traditional values that are largely absent, and British Conservatives are not as unified on stances such as being anti-abortion and gun rights are not prevalent as an issue
- There is a militant and anti-government streak absent from Conservatives also, such as not rejecting vaccinations (May 2020 statistics found 23% of Americans being unwilling to get vaccinated) - Conservatives are more focused on how their government is limited in international affairs rather than on a domestic level
- Healthcare is also a clear difference - Conservatives support welfare states such as universal healthcare, but Republicans reject ‘socialist’ healthcare plans advocated by the progressive wing of the Democrat parties and Democrats remain suspicious of this kind of healthcare as well as Republicans
- By contrast, devotion to and protection is a prerequisite for all UK parties, and health policies differ on the ways to fund the NHS and the role of the private sector

Question 19

Areas of difference - ideology

Answer 19

Ideology - UK parties have been more ideological and influenced by key political thinkers, with the Labour party being ideologically in debt to thinkers such as Socialist Webb, and the Conservative Party was less wedded to a formal ideology has embraced Burkean and Disraelian ideas of ‘one-nation Toryism’
- Even the more strident conservatism in the 1980s mirrorer liberalism and laissez-faire economics and the Conservative name assumes an affinity with the past and suspicion of abstract radical ideas, while Labour harks back to 1900 origins as a working class party
- In the USA, party labels are meaningless; both support the notion of republic and democracy

Question 20

Areas of difference - relationships between leaders

Answer 20

• Relationships between party leaders - Conservative PM Thatcher and Republican President Reagan famously had a good relationship in the 1980s, which is reflective of agreement on free market commitment and opposition to Soviet totalitarianism
  Another close relationship was between Bush and Blair, especially over Middle Eastern foreign policy, and it is also assumed that there was a lack of any personal chemistry between Trump and May, but Obama apparently turned down many requests to hold a bilateral meeting with Brown (Labour) in 2009 at the UN in New York and during the G20 summit - leaders from ‘equivalent parties’ therefore do not always get along
• On most policy areas, Republicans remain on the right of the conservatives, while the Democrats remain on the right of the Labour party, with clear crossover but important differences, reflecting the differences in political culture and priorities of the two countries

Question 21

Internal unity within the main parties in the UK and the USA - arguments for greater party unity in the US and growing party division in the UK

Answer 21

• US - greater hyperpartisanship in recent times, with both parties becoming more ideologically homogeneous and geographically segregated since the 1980s, with very few Deep South Democrats (Bennie Thompson represented Mississippi in the House in minority-majority districts) - Republicans are becoming equally thin on the ground on the West Coast ad in the Northeast, with race, religion and media consumption becoming predictors for party loyalty; voting records in Congress base around party lines, such as for Trump’s impeachment and Obamacare, with every Republican in Congress voting against Obamacare
• UK - MPs are more willing to break party lines, with 139 Labour rebels in the 2003 vote over invading Iraq; more Conservatives opposed the same-sex marriage bill in 2013 than supported it, despite Cameron proposing it, it was only passed due to opposition MPs

Question 22

Internal unity within the main parties in the UK and the USA - arguments for greater party unity in the US and growing party division in the UK pt2

Answer 22

• UK - both Labour and Conservative leaders have been directly subjected to leadership challenges (Corbyn in 2016 loing 172-40 after his entire shadow cabinet resigned, only survived after entire party membership voted to save him with a 62% majority) (Thatcher and May successfully removed in 1990 and 2019) - all these instances were a result of deep policy divides over policy and the quality of leadership, with Brexit dividing the Conservatives and a lacklustre election result in 2017
• Thatcher had too rigid of a leadership style and due to the unpopular poll tax, there was widespread failure to listen to colleagues and their concerns, and in addition despite 3 successive election victories, they could not trust her to win again
• The concern with Corbyn was that he would be too left-wing
  By contrast, US parties have not had the same level of internal opposition to their leaders or open feuding, with even Trump keeping the party unified, no President has recently faced a challenge on their second term internally, with the last occasion being Ted Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter for the Democratic candidacy in 1980

Question 23

Internal unity within the main parties in the UK and the USA -Arguments against greater party unity in the US and for party division in the UK being longstanding

Answer 23

It is argued that division in the UK is not new and US parties often obscure divides; the UK parties have long contained different factions, which are often at odds, and deep divisions still remain in US parties
- Division in the Democratic party - in 2019, they were divided in the primaries over policy for the presidency, with Sanders and Warren advocating more progressive policy platforms including writing off student loan debts and ‘Medicare for All’ but other candidates including Joe Biden were more cautious and centrist
- Division in Labour - historically deep divisions, and recent rebellions and leadership challenges are not a new phenomenon, with the Labour party experiencing deep divisions on unilateral nuclear disarmament, with leader Gaitskell imploring delegates at the 1960 conference declaring to reject the policy of unilateralist, pacifist wing and in the early 1980s, Labour was again troubled by factionalism on how far left it should position itself policy wise but also through Trotskyite infiltration and the antics of Militant
- Division in the Conservatives - despite having a secret weapon of party loyalty, the Conservatives have also historically been factions, with Brexit being the most recent example of divide over policy; but, in the Thatcher years, there were moderate ‘wets’ and strong right-wing supporters ‘dires’, and Major faced internal unrest from his MPs over Europe and he had to call and win a snap leadership election on the lines of ‘Back me or sack me’
- All parties have internal disunity, both historically and in the more recent past, all have ideological fault lines, usually between moderates and liberals, personalities and leadership styles often have large influence as internal feuding is exacerbated by knowledge that whoever gains leadership will be president or prime minister

Question 24

Similarities and differences between the UK and USA concerning campaign and party finance:
Structural aspects of campaign finance -

Answer 24

• Campaign expenditure caps - tight limits in the UK with a maximum spend of £30,000 per candidate standing, capping the legally allowed total at around £19 million and there are clear spending caps on individual candidates (£8,700 + 9p or 6p per registered voter in their consistency, depending on population density), all donors pledging over £7,500 have to make themselves public, and the Electoral Commission fines for those breaking the rules and failure to produce quarterly reports; in 2020, Plaid Cymru was fined over £29,000 for this breach in the rules
• However, in the US, rules over party finance are more complex; formal regulation through legislation e.g. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 has been changed by court rulings such as the Citizens united and SpeechNow court cases; rules limit direct donations to parties and candidates (hard money) but almost no effective ones to restrict indirect or independent expenditure (soft money)
• This difference comes from different sovereignty rules in each country; the Constitution holds sovereignty with the ‘supreme will’ of the people an so all legislation must be constitutional and can allow for numerous challenges over campaign finance that may impact on freedom of speech and expression protected under the 1st amendment

Question 25

Similarities and differences between the UK and USA concerning campaign and party finance:
Structural aspects of campaign finance cont. -

Answer 25

• State funding of campaigns - in the UK, far more is done by the government to assist with election costs on a politically neutral basis e.g. voter registration is undertaken centrally by the government, leaving no scope for party involvement; in the USA, much party energy and cash is absorbed by registration drives, especially with Democrats trying to win ethnic-minority votes
• UK candidates are also legally entitled to free postage of one piece of election literature, which costs British taxpayers £42 million (2017 election) - no equivalents exist in the US and attempts at ‘matched funding’ are weakened by court cases such as the 2011 Bennet cases and by leading candidates reluctance to embrace voluntary caps on campaign expenditure - no major presidential candidate has accepted matched funding since 2008
• Pressure groups - UK pressure groups are much more tightly regulated in terms of their political activities, especially at election time; the Charity Commission seeks to ensure charities to not spend money on campaigning against or for particular parties or candidates as charities cannot have political purpose
• UK charities cannot openly support or donate to parties; but, in the USA, many pressure groups can endorse, donate to and campaign for candidates using their political action committees (PACs) or associated 501/527 groups
• Legal framework - spending in the UK, under the terms of the Communications Act 2003, means that TV airtime cannot be purchased for political ads, but instead major parties are allocated free slots for party election broadcasts, with no such restrictions in the USA - one estimate calculated $10.8 billion was spent on the 2020 election ads

Question 26

Similarities and differences between the UK and USA concerning campaign and party finance: Rational aspects of campaign finance

Answer 26

• Interest groups and donors - far more influence in the US than the UK, as there is far more rationale for wealthy individuals and pressure groups in the US to donate and become actively involved in political campaigning (Sheldon Adelson and George Soros are frequent donors)
• Opportunities are more restricted in the UK, but there remain many wealthy individual donors such as bankers who supported Cameron and Johnson and controversial donors such as the Leader’s Group (2003) donate millions to Conservative Party coffers, and some trade unions such as Unite fund Labour
• In both countries, the wealthy donate out of political empathy but also out of a desire to secure policies favourable or not detrimental to their interests, and be presumed to enjoy a higher degree of personal contact with political figures
• Electoral battlegrounds - spending is rationally focused on electoral battlegrounds, which is much easier to achieve in the US than the UK where vast sums are spent on campaigning and advertising in states such as Florida; it is less easy in the UK because expenditure is more tightly controlled but the advent of digital ads has made it easier for UK parties to spend money on nationally funded but hyper-local ad through buying data, especially in demographics to target voters

Question 27

Similarities and differences between the UK and USA concerning campaign and party finance: Cultural aspects of campaign finance

Answer 27

• Campaign finance occupies more of an explicit place in US politics and the fundraising also continues throughout terms with constant receptions, which Biden used in 2020 to gain funding through virtual fundraisers
• Heavily influenced by 1st Amendment notions of individual rights and freedoms, extending to the freedom to make political donations, which since the Citizens United case has been viewed as a legitimate extension of political expression - there is however still a suspicion on government interference in the ‘right to spend’
• In the UK, political culture is more nuanced; there is a tradition of political donations, but there is more willingness to accept some state involvement in regulating campaign funding even if wholesale reforms to party funding including greater state funding remains stalled and there is less recourse to the courts to expand the parameters for spending
• However, ‘Cash for Honours’ has been an allegation levelled at Conservative and Labour leaders, and the ‘spoils systems’ in the US enables presidents to give ambassadorships to generous donors
• There is an expectation in the UK of equal campaign finance on the political playing field but in the US individual rights and initiative play more of a vital role

Question 28

Theories of comparative politics

Answer 28

Theories of comparative politics:
- Structural theory - how the different structures government of the constitutions and governmental systems compare
- Rational theory - differing political choices that voters make in the UK/US, such as parties and pressure groups
- Cultural theory - differing histories of both countries and how this has affected the doe of political debate and activity

Question 29

How the US is still a two-party system but the UK is multiparty - cultural dimension

Answer 29

Cultural aspects to third parties:
- UK third parties have deeper historical roots than their US counterparts, with the LibDems tracing their origins to the beginning of parliamentary government and were dominant in the early 20th century - nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales can trace their roots to the interwar period and the nationalist / unionist has roots in the 19th century
- Sinn Fein won its first Westminster seat in 1918
- In contrast, third parties are relatively new in the US, with the Libertarians founded in 1971 and the Green Party in the 1980s; in the US, third parties rise and quickly disappear, for example with Wallace and the American Independent Party
- Regional and cultural diversity each have different effects in each country - in the UK, the distinct culture (language, legal and education systems) of the devolved regions provides a natural setting for third parties and the appeal of Nationalist parties
- In the US, there is even more cultural, ethnic and regional diversity, but the country is so large and diverse that there would be too many third parties that would make national politics impossible
- Or, you would have a two national party system with distinct regional characteristics; the US is therefore two-party and the UK multi-party as a result
- Independence, one of the main parts of the UK third parties, is also impossible in the US as the American Civil War but an end to any secession from the Union

Question 30

Structural dimension to party dominance

Answer 30

• Whilst FPTP allows for most elections in both countries to cement a two-party system, some aspects of the US structure promote two-party systems
• Laws on ballot access - makes it hard for candidates from third parties to get on the ballot as large amounts of signatures are needed or a percentage of the votes in previous election
• Lack of national election system - translates into a handicap for smaller parties, as many states have high thresholds; the third party presidential candidate filing fee for Oklahoma for 2020 was $35,000
  Requirements in the UK are a lot lower, with candidates requiring a £500 deposit (refundable if over 5% of the vote is achieved) and a nomination form signed by just ten voters
• Televised presidential debates are structured is a further obstacle for independents; to qualify for a debating slot, candidates have to poll on average 15% in five designated polls, creating a scenario in which they need publicity in order to get onto the debates to grow support and publicity, but a lack of publicity in the first place makes it hard to even register poll numbers

Question 31

Rational dimension to party dominance

Answer 31

• Dominance of the two-party system creates its own reinforcement; high profile independently minded candidates like Trump and Sanders who could run outside the party label choose instead to run for the nomination of one of the two main parties; the existence of primaries and how they operate increases the incentive to run under the ‘mega-party label’
• Because of the emphasis on personalities, individual platforms and voter appeal, the primary system attracts a wide variety of candidates vying for nominations at all levels who often owe little to the central party organisation
• It sometimes appears that US parties are comprised of independent political operatives with their own donor base, campaign team and particular message, and this is still reflected in the weaker party unity often shown in some Congressional issues despite a rise in hyperpartisanship
• When party defections occur, they happen between Republicans and Democrats; Jeff Van Drew defected from the Democrats to the Republicans in 2020
  In the UK, a lack of a primary system means that there is a lot more attraction for candidates to seek election via other parties than Labour and the Conservatives, and party defections usually involve the Liberal Democrats - Heidi Allen and Chuka Ummnna from Change UK in 2019 defected to the LibDems, and others stand as independents when disillusioned from their parties, including Labour’s Frank Field but this case defied harsh electoral logic, being defeated at the general election
• Most disaffected UK politicians feel it makes sense politically and morally to leave main parties
• Also makes rational sense in both countries to vote for the two main parties in order to not waste a vote, which is especially true in the US where every state is essentially a two-party contest at both state and national level, and whilst this is true for a majority of Labour/Conservative electoral battlegrounds, there are some states which have scope for tactical voting, benefiting parties such as the LibDems in particular
• In 2019, Daisy Cooper defeated incumbent Conservative Anne Main in St Albans, helped by a collapse in the Labour vote there which fell by 8,000, suggesting a large chunk of Labour supporters switched votes

Question 32

Significance of third parties

Answer 32

• This is the sharpest contrast between the two political systems - third parties are more important in the UK, and independents are more important in the USA; in the 2020 election, 98% of votes were for Trump and Biden, whereas only up to 80% of the vote was Conservative/Labour in the UK
• However, the UK is somewhat two-party at the current time, with the three most recent elections seeing a third party balance of power between 2010-2015 and 2015-2017, corrected in 2019 with a return to Labour/Conservative dominance

Question 33

Why are third parties more significant? - Balance of power

Answer 33

• Resulted in a formal coalition in 2010-2015 between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and this allowed a third party hand in policy with the LibDems in cabinet, seen in an alternative vote referendum and scrapping compulsory ID cards for voters
• During May’s minority government, a less formal ‘confidence and supply agreement’ was established with the DUP (NI), with the deal securing a £1 billion funding package for Northern Ireland and an agreement to safeguard the union from the Conservatives
• There is no historical parallel of third parties balancing the power in the US, with Congressional control residing with one of two main parties often with one chamber controlled by one party and the other chamber by the other, requiring a different approach to political compromises to pass legislation
• The incentive is generally to try and secure bipartisan support, but third parties are entirely excluded from this system, and there is also no equivalent in the US of national elections being won by a third party such as the success of the Brexit Party in 2019 winning the final European Elections involving the UK

Question 34

Why are third parties more significant? - Representation

Answer 34

• In the devolved assemblies with their different electoral systems STV and AMS, the two main parties struggle to dominate, with the party system in Northern Ireland being entirely void of the main parties (they have no representation there) and in Wales and Scotland, Plaid Cymru and the SNP dominate their Assembly and Parliament respectively, even in a minority government - given the growth of power in devolved assemblies, third parties are additionally significant in these institutions (third parties significant on a level below Westminster government)
• In contrast, no state government in the USA deviates from the norm of two party control, with a lack of representatives in major offices at any level - former Republican Senator Weicker won the 1990 Connecticut gubernatorial election for his newly formed A Connecticut Party, but like Wallace’s American Independence Party in 1968, the party was based around a single figure and had no longevity
• For Libertarian and Green parties, any elected posts held by their members are at the lowest rung of local government such as district school boards or town councils - in 2020, Libertarian Charles Boust had an auditor post in Pennsylvania and former wrestler Jesse Ventura won a 1998 Governor’s race in Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket in a close contest but soon quit the party and became an independent
• In contrast, UK parties have frequently run local council elections including major cities like Portsmouth and Liverpool
• This lack of representation means that third parties in the USA struggle to have any significant impact on national policies and legislation - unlike the UK, there is no evidence of policy compromise and shifts to accommodate coalition partners
• The closest to this in the US is co-optation of policies, where a main party adopts a third party policy e.g. Ross Perot’s plan to eliminate federal budget deficit, which was then adopted by both parties in 1992, and in 2019 the Democrats adopted the Green Party’s New Deal with its emphasis on tackling climate change, lessening the appeal of the Greens and a loss of potential votes for them

Question 35

Why are third parties significant? - Securing votes

Answer 35

• There is also little incentive for potential candidates in the USA to run outside the two-party system, with the traditional broad appeal and looser central structure (big tent parties), with third parties and independents simply acting as ‘spoilers’ by splitting tickets in some crucial areas e.g. Ralph Nader, a Green candidate, won enough left-leaning votes in Florida to spoil the chances of Democrat Al Gore, leaving George Bush to take the swing state and the President - Gore was ironically a committed environmentalist
• Battleground states in 2016 and 2020 also saw third parties take more votes in the three Rust Belt swing states than the winning margins of the two victorious candidates
• There is also evidence of this in the UK, with votes for third parties clearly determining the outcome of the election often in a way voters regret - in 2019, former Labour leader Ed Miliband who was strongly Remain, kept his seat in Doncaster North with a majority of around 2,000 over the Conservatives, with the Brexit party coming in 3rd with over 8,000 votes, spoiling the ‘pro-Brexit’ cause

Question 36

The significance of independent candidates

Answer 36

• Independents tend to be more prominent in the US than third parties, especially as they are often focused around their founder and so essentially operate as independents regardless - in 2020, the two senators not formally affiliated to either main party, King in Maine and Sanders in Vermont were elected officially as independents but had close relations with the Democrats and neither were opposed by Democrats in their Senate races
• In contrast, very few independents are elected in the UK and when they are it is normally because at least one party has stood down for them - former BBC reporter Martin Bell stood and won in 1997 as an independent in the Conservative safe seat in Tatton - no Labour or Liberal Democrats contested the seat, but he was the first novice independent MP to be elected since 1951
• Party politics dominate the political landscape in both the US and the UK, but there is an additional obstacle in the UK that wealthy individuals wishing to run as independents are unable to spend unlimited amounts on their campaign
• There are flurries of support for charismatic independents, but none have the support to win elected office; the UK system favours third parties, and the US system favours independents