POLI 222 Midterm 2

Question 1

Alan Cairns

Answer 1

Context:
Pierre Trudeau elected in 1968, Liberal feds want federalizism/centralism but CFF and PQ (creating a multiparty system) so feds because the feds want to maintain a simple majority system.

What?
The Electoral System and the Party System in Canada, 1921-1965.

When?
1968 (all the following readings are responses to Cairns)

Thesis: The electoral system has impeded national unity by being a determinant of the party system as it exacerbates sectional cleavages/single-member constituency system + the solution is proportional representation not aggregate as it encourages parties to develop a national orientation (equal votes instead of strongest in the country).

Regional grievances supported by parties as parties have not been able to help with regional grievances because of the first-pass-the-post system and federalism.

Argument:
(1) The electoral system favours the strongest majority party + minor parties with sectional strongholds = surplus of seats over votes translation which exaggerated sectionalism at the level of representation.

(2) Pronounces sectionalism in parliament (parties → provs like Liberal QC and Conservative ON as Conservatives sentenced Louis Riel so the Liberals were packaged as a protector of minorities). This makes the parliamentary composition of each party less representative of the sectional interests.

(3) Disagress with the brokerage theory (party system is a nationalizing agency). Focus on sectional divisions > class.

(4) Indirectly determines party policymakers which directly affects policy = by categorizing parties by provs there is no need for an intra-party spokesman which results in Skewed Policy in the interests of the strongest parliamentary support.

(5) Aggravates party bias (no francophone in the Conservative party).

(6) A single-member constituency system accentuates the geographical localization of opinions (transform a national opinion into a local opinion by allowing it to be represented only in the sections of the country in which it is strongest) vs. Proportional representation works oppositely as opportunities strongly entrenched locally broaden onto the national plane by the possibility of being represented in districts where they are in a small minority. BUT he does not favour it completely just that it believes in equal votes.

(7) Sectionalism is unavoidable as long as party voter support is different in a section vs. the country = its innate in the Canadian structure ever since federation.

(8) Why we don’t have an equal system in Canada is because of the anglo-saxon majority because French people don’t have enough outside QC.

Question 2

Why do we care about elections?

Answer 2

(1) Democratic legitimacy

(2) Convey our preferences

(3) Accountability between voters and the legislative (if I don’t like what the gov is doing who is my representative)

Question 3

Multiparty System

Answer 3

Many parties not only Republican and Democrats like America.

Question 4

Brokerage Party System

Answer 4

Smaller parties that try to align ideological differences that the main parties don’t talk about (i.e., Green party).

Brokerage parties have no firm ideological position. They compete to deliver policies that meet the desires of the greatest number of the people (median voter).

Question 5

First Pass the Post

Answer 5

First person who is past the post wins the electoral riding, the person that receives the highest number of votes compared to other candidates.

Question 6

Single Member Party System (SMP)

Answer 6

One person is a part of 1 party per riding/electoral district (Liberals have 1 person in a constituency and same with Conservatives, etc).

Question 7

Simple Majority System (SMP)

Answer 7

The first pass the post system creates majorities in government.

Question 8

Families of the Electoral Systems

Answer 8

Proportional vs. Non-Proportional

Proportional systems are more representative of the votes (40% votes = 40% seats but non-proportional you can get 100% of the seats because if the blue voters are 40% and vote blue in all of the ridings of a city then the city is represented by MPs from the blue party even if the majority 60% wanted other colours)

This 60% was divided into 30% yellow voters, 20% pink voters, and 10% purple voters

This means there can be minority governments under FPTP bc the candidate with the most votes wins (single member plurality voting in single-member districts)

Question 9

Non-Proportional Systems

Answer 9

Winner takes all (winner not determine by the proportion of votes but on single member plurality/first-pass the post)

You can win it all with less than 50%

Question 10

SMP or First pass the post (FTPTP)

Answer 10

The candidate that wins the election is the one with the most votes.

A single-member plurality system tends to reward bigger parties.

Single member plurality system = if your most preferred candidate is weak and your last one is strong, you have every incentive to vote for your second favourite (bloc Quebecois vs. NDP and you really like the liberals vote for second preferred candidate between the bloc Quebecois and the NDP) = incentivizes not voting the first preference.

Question 11

Majority Rule

Answer 11

You need the majority of the votes and is non-proportional because you can win 100% of the seat with 50% of the vote + 1

Question 12

Instant runoff voting/alternative voting (IRV/AV)

Answer 12

Ranking Votes

If nobody wins they take the two top candidates and have a runoff election getting a majority winner BUT placing a burden on voters that they have to show up twice which gives a potential turnout problem vs. ranking candidates and showing up once (cognitively a burden but not logistically) OR knock out the lowest candidate and re-allocate that candidate’s votes to the others

Question 13

Proportional Systems

Answer 13

Allocates seats in a district according to a proportion of votes won by the party.

The proportional vote is the best to reflect everyone’s votes but the tradeoff is an administrative burden (i.e., counting votes) + accountability question if you have a proportional system and you have a multi-member district who do you call? What is that accountability? = representative tradeoff with administrative burden or cognitive burden.

When you have proportional voting it rewards smaller parties vs. non-proportional only rewards small parties if strong sectionalism (Cairns). So long as you are above a minimum threshold you will be rewarded = a party fragmentation.

Question 14

Ways to Transfer Votes into Seats

Answer 14

(1) Ranking system = instant runoff system or in proportional systems, it’s called single transferable vote

(2) Just vote for the party you want and the part says here is our list of who those candidates are so you just vote for the party list system and the party decides who is their representative

Question 15

Strategic Voting

Answer 15

I am voting for someone who is not my most preferred candidate (usually in SMP).

Question 16

Mixed Member Proportion or Hybrid System (MMP)

Answer 16

One chamber is made of both proportional and non-proportional seats.
OR
Legislature with 2 chambers (a house and a senate) then you can make one chamber proportional and the other non-proportional

Question 17

Duverger’s Law

Answer 17

SMP/FPP leads to bipartism (party system dominated by two parties like in America) vs.
PR leads to multipartism (Canada)

Question 18

How do party systems change?

Answer 18

(1) Change in electoral rules
(2) Change in underlying bases of party support

Question 19

Main challenge for a political party?

Answer 19

The central challenge for a political party is to win or have a soul (tradeoff) = stand for something (platform of ideas and policies) = this is what I stand for and I won’t move vs. what do I have to do to get your vote?

The point of having a proportional system is that you don’t have to sell your soul but there are more fringe parties = 5 parties trying to figure out who runs the show (volatility in terms of who runs the show = who is forming the government in the chamber)

Question 20

Spacial theory of voting

Answer 20

one dimension (i.e., left and right or pro and anti-pro) of voting that people care about and we are going to assume that there are going to be 2 alternative people to vote for (2 candidates) = 2 choices of candidates

Spatial theory assumes that voters can measure the distance between themselves and the candidates in multidimensional policy space, and vote either for the candidate nearest them or, tactically, for a more remote candidate with a higher chance of winning.

Question 21

Single-peaked voter preferences

Answer 21

People will vote for the candidate that is closer to them on this issue and this is the only thing voters care about

Question 22

Median Voter

Answer 22

The median voter is the voter in the middle that cuts the distribution in half

Converging to the middle = in order to be successful as a party/candidate you have to go to the middle to win

Given that the candidate is left-wing the other candidate goes right and wins because it is closer to the center (encompasses more interests by being less polarized) so more people vote for it in proximity.

But if both move to the center they converge to the median voter to maximize chances of winning
In the real world, we don’t know where the median is but try to figure it out through polling. Where the median depends on turnout = you change turnout you change the median (i.e., demographic change)

Question 23

Brokerage/Cadre Parties of Canada vs. Other parties

Answer 23

2 dominant parties in the center = liberal party and the conservative party
Liberals are more stable than the volatile conservatives (blow up habitually)

Volatile protest/anti-system
politics, West and Quebec,
(“Insurgents” by Johnston) and the CCF/NDP

Dominant Liberals at the
centre, CCF/NDP holding on left flank (working class votes) V.S. Conservatives, harried by
Insurgents (nationalists, right)

Question 24

Labour and NDP

Answer 24

There is an imperfect relationship between labour and NDP because the Canadian Labour Congress does not control unions (unions are not bound by the decision to support the NDP).

The union movement has its divisions and fractions = there are blue and white collar.

The NDP is successful enough to form governments at the provincial level.

When you are a government has to negotiate labour vs. public unions = the challenges of managing a fiscal government situation (lower taxes = moral gov debt/spending but more jobs bc more money to spend/invest) = the NDP cannot be seen only as pro-labour but also needs to govern.

Question 25

Liberals

Answer 25

The liberal party is successful because it is already in the middle on the left-right dimension and the national dimension of pro-nationalism vs. QC

Liberals are the most pro-Canada party in QC and the most pro-QC party in Canada so the liberal party does not have to sell their soul because that is where their soul is

NDP don’t have to sell their soul but also don’t necessarily want to win = their maintenance threatens the left side of Liberals which have to implement some policy stuff that the NDP want to stay in power

Liberals can act as a majority even with minority votes because the opposition is fragmented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question 26

CCF/NDP

Answer 26

Regional base: western, southern Ontario
– Success in provincial politics
– Weak class voting

Strong enough party of
the working class to hang on,
but not strong enough to take over as one of the duopoly.

Started as the CFF during the great depression (1933), a socialist/agrarian/populist party. Its leader was Tommy Douglas (the PM of Saskatchewan and creator of Universal Healthcare).

1935-1944 (mid 30s to war years) the CFF became a federal party vs. Liberals but Douglas moves to prov AB politics.

1958 Conservatives won under Diefenbaker

1961 NDP Founding Convention:
(1) to commit to their socialism they need to be structured that way and commit to a relationship with the Canadian Labour Congress
(2) Individual members and affiliate members through union locales (need funds/volunteers = have to sell soul)

Question 27

Effective Number of Parties

Answer 27

How many parties in this place are actually competitive? Quality of a democracy is linked to the development of competitive
party systems.

If you have a strong electoral system it pulls the # down to around 2 (SMPS/bi-parties)

Democrats and Republicans win 50% of the votes each = 2 = USA follows Duverger’s Law

Proportional representation = #s above 2

Question 28

Electoral-System Theory

Answer 28

Strong system induces action to move the number of electoral parties down into two blocs = Johnston says a polity leans toward bipartisan bc of a strong electoral system (efficient party # theory) or few cleavages

Question 29

Polarized Pluralism

Answer 29

A two-party or multi-party political system which is seen as overly polarized.

Question 30

Richard Johnston

Answer 30

Context:

What?
Polarized Pluralism in the Canadian Party System. Parties are reacting to discrepancies in the first-pass-the-post system = regional grievances which translates into different types of parties like PQ and NDP.

When?
2008

Thesis:
The Canadian party system is dominated by a center party (Liberals) which induces polarization (other parties become more extreme). Polarized pluralism is responsible for 3 party comp.

Argument:
(1) Support Cairns but he focuses too much on geographic incentives in the electoral system vs. the structure of party competition.

(2) The electorate is not a unitary entity however it is segmented between Quebec and the rest of Canada (Cairns)

(3) Fractionalization (degree of division in a country’s pop) makes Canada an outlier of Duverger’s Law..

(4) Liberals command the center on 2 dimensions = left-right ideological axis (Quebec vs. non-Quebec) + national question (key to dominance).

(5) Anti-system parties (Communist) encourage center concentration bc of extremism (but middle is shrinking). Want to change rules vs. struggle for power like the poles.

(6) Threat from the right (Conservatives) > center threat from the left (NDP) which is why NDP never formed fed gov = The three-party dynamic in federal constituencies does not extend to provincial ones

(7) Conservative volatility complement to Liberal longevity = Liberals rely on QC votes for fed gov vs. Conservatives fail to capture QC and rely on the West (no fed gov)

(8) Because of party asymmetry, Conservative gains/losses come in exchange with 3rd parties where voters rise to the bate of parties appealing to system critiques.

Question 31

Federalist Left vs. Sovereignties Left

Answer 31

Federalist NDP
- Social welfare means strong role for fed gov
- Support of leader Broadbent for Patriation was critical
NDP has provincial success in ROC but can’t win federal seats without QC. NDP has the least success in QC bc of cleavage structures (provinces are important but the way to have a coherent welfare state across sectionalism is that you need a strong federal government where the federal government is a funder and ties provincial autonomy).

Sovereignist Left in QC
- Labour movement in QC came to be strongly associated with PQ > NDP

NDP argument is strong federal government vs. QC strong provincial autonomy

Question 32

Asymmetrical Federalism

Answer 32

Shift in 2011 when Jack Layton was the NDP leader from QC and was francophone = among non-conservatives the conservative Harper government was not liked. 2003-2011 new leader that QCs identified with and the liberals are weak so the NDP took the opportunity but the deal is that they had to make arguments for QC votes vs. their principal of stronger federal government.

Question 33

2011 Orange Wave

Answer 33

This happens because of the weakness of the liberals and those who consider themselves social progressives under the liberals have switched to NDP with Layton + attract left-wing Bloc Quebecois voters who don’t like the conservatives and try something new
SMP story where if you have a number of really competitive parties you can have weird threshold effects where a small change in vote makes one win all the seats
4 parties competing for votes federally in 2011 (PQ, Bloc Quebecois, NDP, conservatives)

Question 34

2015 Federal Election

Answer 34

2015 the liberals came back and switched to Trudeau and won the majority. NDP was new so it also had weak partisan attachement + Layton died.

Niqab debate in the last days of the 2015 election = became anybody but the conservatives so ROC voted Liberal to block the Conservatives.

Question 35

Janine Brodie and Jane Jenson

Answer 35

Context: Montreal/Alberta profs (strongest sectionalism).

What?
Examines the Canadian party system in relation to the party systems of other countries + social class role in shaping party politics. Class cleavages that Cairns ignores.

When?
1990

Thesis: Need to go beyond Canadian context/brokerage model (model that Cairns disagrees with) to understand party organization (NOT VOTERS) which is not based on class making Canada an anomaly of the modernizing party system (Modernity thesis that in post-industrial modern politics means class politics). Rejects modernity theory but not class altogether (as it is present in the Liberal brokerage party)

Argument:
(1) Class-based voting is absent in fed politics = franco/anglo cleavages + economy/geography cleavages promote pop mov/social mobility + brokerage parties (Liberals) focus on nationalism > class (Cairns + Johnston)

(2) Challenge brokerage theory/middle class theory (support modernity theory) = Canada is not middle class + third parties bc interests fail to be accommodated by the 2 major parties + little evidence of brokerage party non-class based

(3) Rejects the inevitability of class-based electoral politics in industrial societies (bourgeois vs. proletariat parties) = NDP competition (but failed to stand out from liberal/conservative welfare promises/nationalization policies)

Question 36

Partisan Sorting

Answer 36

Partisan sorting is an effect in politics in which voters sort themselves into parties that match their ideology (like-minded clusters into different parties). Partisan sorting is distinct from political polarization, which is where partisans subscribe to increasingly extreme positions.

Increased polarization = Increased partisan sorting (groups become more specific)

Question 37

Partisan Polarization

Answer 37

Decreasing overlap in distributions across partisans

Increasing distance between partisan means/averages

Question 38

Matthew Polacko, Simon Kiss, and Peter Graefe

Answer 38

Context

What?
The Changing Nature of
Class Voting in Canada specifically the voting of the working class from 1965-2019 (federally)

When?
2022

Thesis: Class cleavages in Canada are weak (Brodie & Jenson) but not absent
(vs. Cairns/Brodie & Jenson/Johnston). Class differentiation isn’t strong in Canada so the working class and the professionals are bound in time = with mostly no distinctions across class.

Argument:
(1) Class is a cleavage in Canadian politics = working-class increased Conservative support bc of moral traditionalism/anti-immigration (since 2004)

(2) NDP voters working class (until 2019) + after 1993 Liberals least working class support vs. Brodie & Jenson Liberals have more working class support than NDP (bc its a 1990 article)

(3) Increased partisan sorting between NDP and the Conservative working-class voters on economic issues (support NDP views on redistribution), not a predictor of Liberal support though.

(4) Class cleavages play out between left-wing/lower income groups vote /education and right-winged parties/higher income group vote (bourgeois/proletariat Brodie & Jenson)

(5) Canadian voting is not dominated by class cleavages but by the strength of regional/religious/national cleavages (religion the most)

(6) Middle Class in QC: Liberals > NDP > Conservatives vs. ROC NDP > Conservatives > Liberals

Question 39

Spatial Proximity Voting vs. Strategic Voting

Answer 39

Spatial and proximity voting are the same thing = pick whichever one is closest to your position that you care about and choose a party/person based on that
Strategic voting to make the party that you do not want to win, lose = ranking = sought out info that is not just about the party but about competitiveness

Question 40

Colombia School

Answer 40

Campaigns don’t matter…

1950s political scientists (Barelson and Lazerflet) came up with a theory about American presidential politics

Voting behaviour wasn’t changed as much (vote shifts are stable) and anchored in the social structure (class, race, region) = socio-structural theory of voting (you grow up in certain place and this is how you will vote)

Limit that they don’t have the technology to measure change across time (discrete shifts from one election to another)

If this theory is true the campaign does not matter because it doesn’t change how people vote

Limit can’t explain the NDP winning in 2011 but accounts for generational change in votes

Question 41

Michigan School

Answer 41

Michigan school = 10 years later in the 1960s than the Chicago schoo = ability to do surveys is getting better and disagree with Columbia that their theory is too static = Camble, Congress, Miller, and Stokes say that they need an intervening variable where social structure still matters but we need more = addition to the theory of voting behaviour is partisan identification

PID is about identity = people identify with the party = psychological attachment theory that can’t be explained by just issues.

Medium to short-term factors

Question 42

Why is PID Important?

Answer 42

(1) It is relatively stable but has no social structure and does not experience great variation. Can shift across time but does not shift that much.

(2) PID is not the same as vote choice = I can feel attached to a party and vote for another one = if you feel attached to a party the probability of voting for it is high but we make a conceptual distinction between the two = PID is an explanation of voting behaviour but is not voting behaviour

Question 43

PID Implications

Answer 43

(1) Psychological attachement

(2) Stable over time (doesn’t mean it will never change) = unmoved mover so you can see if it affects smth else

(3) Independent of current vote preference

PID voter base = people who identify with the party are the base and are the people from the election who are the most likely to vote for them because they are attached to them

If everyone’s vote is up for grabs for every election then party campaigns matter = the noise turn to the game = PID is important to parties because they can sell their soul next week with no change.

Why did NDP disappear in QC = because NDP is new and their vote is not up for grabs because they don’t have a base in QC

Now we say PID is relatively stable and is a thing in Canada but can be flakey as we have more split identifiers (provincially and federal party identification) + more partisan instability across time

Richard Johnson says this volatility may be that we don’t ask the right questions on the survey and make it look like peoples’ PIDs shift over time so we need to be better political scientists

Question 44

Priming

Answer 44

The process in which the media attend to some issues and not others and thereby alter the standards by which people evaluate election candidates.

Priming/framing effect (presents issues in certain ways and says the issue should be understood as this kind of issue vs. another)(this is the standard by which you should understand this thing)

EX: Peace mission framing/priming vs. another reality frame = Canadian troops in Afganistan

Question 45

Richard Johnston

Answer 45

Context:
The 1988 Canadian Election Study (CES) sought to go back to the spirit of the 1940 and 1949 Columbia studies. The 1988 election was over the FTA.

What?
Party Identification and Campaign Dynamics in the 1988 Canadian General Election campaign. Party ID turns into membership (i.e., I vote Liberal but am not part of the party).

When?
1992

Thesis: Canadians exhibited party commitments similar to Americans. Party commitments shaped respondents’ reactions to campaign events + perceptions of the leader rehabilitated by the campaign. The campaign also cut through party groups. Long-term forces (socio-economic factors) condition the rules of the game but do not necessarily supply the margins between victory and defeat. Movement in FTA opinion reflects the history of party systems where the shift only reinforces the ongoing alignment of voters and parties (Conservatives won).

Argument:
(1) Party ID isn’t the only motivating factor as factors of short-run nature (i.e., foreign policy crises) have a powerful effect on elections.

(2) Campaigns are important because of voter psychology which influences how the candidates are viewed.

(3) Mulroney who was for the FTA (Conservative) was seen as a stronger leader than Turner who was against the FTA (Liberal). This dynamic reversed after the English debates of Oct 24/25 where both liberals and non-liberals voted for Turner (same non-partisan shifts as party ID bc they were malleable/primeable) but in the end the Conservatives won.

(4) Party ID was unmoved by the campaign events.

(5) John Turner did not gain more importance than other leaders but equal importance that Mulroney had all along.

(6) As Mulroney’s performance was perceived positively in the press, party ID went up because the FTA is becoming more popular among the working class
This makes party ID for the liberals go down (parties suffer a reverse decreasing identification).

Question 46

Partisan Opinion Polarization

Answer 46

Increasingly consistent preferences among party supporters and growing gaps between supporters of different parties.

Question 47

Polarization in Canada

Answer 47

(1) Prov vs. fed divides

(2) Multiparty system (NDP 3rd party)

(3) Urban vs. rural divide

(4) QC/Bloc vs. fed gov + ROC vs. QC parties’ interactions

Question 48

Partisan Re-alignment

Answer 48

If the party you identify with shifts in policy so extreme that you choose to no longer identify with them.

(In 1988 fed election Liberals voted Conservative because they were working class and wanted the FTA, which the Liberals were against)

Question 49

Big Tent Parties

Answer 49

MPS we have 2 big parties with one being bigger than the other (Liberals vs. Conservatives) and then smaller parties like the NDP = big-tent parties are the 2 parties
We should like big-tent parties because they are brokerage parties and having a big tent brings a bunch of different people under the tent (Party IDs are diverse) = ideological diversity

We like this because having 2 big centrist tent parties will have an overlap and common ground between parties making it easier to make deals, decide tough questions, etc.

Question 50

Anthony Kevins and Stuart Soroka

Answer 50

Context:
Liberals elected in 2015 vs. 2016 Trump. In America “elite polarization,” has pulled public policy away from the preferences of the general public.

What?
Growing Apart? Partisan Sorting in
Canada 1992-2015 = Interested in the underlying ideas of preferences over redistribution

When?
2017

Thesis: The 2015 election results are not the product of reduced partisan divisions. Redistributive preferences in Canada are increasingly divided across both
economic and partisan lines.

Argument:
Look at the extent to which variation in redistributive preferences is explained by respondents’ party identification, vote, and income

(1) Standard of living (all support the welfare state but QC the most)

(2) Reduce the gap between the rich and poor (more sorting across partisan/income groups in 2015, QC most support)

(3) Get ahead (income >)

Conclusion:
(1) Income is the best indicator of partisan sorting (similar to the Polacko reading). Central issues in Canadian politics are mostly related to finances but for different reasons than the US.

(2) Canada has experienced a surge of partisan voting comparable to the US.

(3) When Conservatives go left and the NDP is unstable the Liberals center themselves in America the Democrats and Republicans don’t shift but continue moving apart.

(4) The number of people that vote for extremist parties (polarization) is increasing in Canada (confirmed by the Polacko piece) more distinction between voters and parties. The Canadian electorate is more divided on partisan lines and parties are responding to it.

Increased income polarization from 2011-2015 (income groups becoming more distinct)(orange crush year to first NDP election). This may be an echo of Polacko’s finding that there is income and partisan distinction is conservatives vs. everybody else. Partisanship also makes a jump but earlier than income (After 2004 + 2011 starts to matter in QC and ROC).

Question 51

How does the media give us access to politics?

Answer 51

(1) Information about candidates/party platforms

(2) information about how other people are voting such as statistical voting polls (Johnston piece)

(3) Stakes of the election and how each platform can affect you individually (motivate)

(4) Opinion pieces allow people to weigh in on different candidates

Question 52

Trimble, Linda, and Shannon Sampert

Answer 52

Context:
Media framing of the 2000s election.

What?
Who’s in the Game? The Framing of
Election 2000 by the Globe and Mail and the National Post

When?
2004

Thesis: Media shapes the “informational environment” where citizens make partisan choices BUT can also undermine democracy because game framing unlike issue framing treats citizens as spectators vs. participants in the election.

Argument:
(1) The Globe and Mail was more likely to use the game frame but the Post used aggressive game terminology in its headlines (warfare/athletic prowess = masculine narrative, exclude female candidates).

(2) News organizations tend to allocate campaign coverage roughly according to party standings in the House of Commons when the election is called

(3) game framing individualizes campaign coverage both by fore-grounding party leaders, and by highlighting leader gaffes, personal characteristics and idiosyncrasies

(4) The Globe and Mail (Liberal) vs. The Post (Social Conservative) but both attacked the governing party equally especially criticizing parties’ negative campaigning (ironic).
Liberals < Conservatives (especially by the Post). This can prime voters as seen in Johnston 1992. The conclusion that everyone game frames.

Question 53

John Zaller 1992

Answer 53

Zaller disapproves Rousseau’s general will.

The nature of mass opinion is flexible and depends on 3 elements
(1) Info we are exposed to (content)
(2) Exposure (there is info you have to be exposed to in order for that info to have an effect on us)
(3) We bring predispositions/filters to the table that we engage with to evaluate the quality the validity of the information that comes to us (we are not neutral)

Question 54

Our New Media Environment

Answer 54

Just having info out there doesn’t mean we are necessarily exposed to it. In our new media environment, exposure is not just what the media covers but what we opt into = selective exposure by algorithm or what we opt into. Predispositions where how we evaluate info/believe it/are exposed to it is determined by our own biases. Biased people are very good at ignoring info that goes against their opinions.

Question 55

Cognitive Shortcuts

Answer 55

Preconceived ideas/biases

Question 56

From low to high choice media environment (Markus Prior)

Answer 56

Low - Broadcast TV (1970s)
Audience Consolidation
Even within your low choices the amount of spectators is very large. Say that there are 2 kinds of people in the world (news/entertainment junkies) both are overlapping and taking in the same news. Those entertainment junkies are passively learning about politics and vice versa even if they did not intend to do so
Not polarizing because no predisposition to politics.
Audience consolidation = half the USA population watching the series finale of Mash. Now we can’t assume what people are watching because we are not linked by the same informational environment, we are more polarized now because of selective exposure and our biases are becoming more strongly held through selective exposure so we become much better at discounting info that goes against what we believe.

High - Internet (now)
Audience Fragmentation
Now the news Junkie can choose things and so can the entertainment junkie = people with strong dispositions are now choosing more and more what kind of information they want to be exposed to

Question 57

Does political ignorance/knowledge matter?
What do scholars say?

Answer 57

People’s actual factual knowledge of politics is very low and is much lower than the democratic theory would like us to have (the idea that democracy is where we support our democratic institutions because we know what is going on in them).

Spatial theory of voting = people vote for candidates that are the closest to their ideologies/opinions. To do this you need to actually have enough info to form an opinion and know what that is. Then it requires you to know where the candidates are in these positions and therefore you will vote for whichever candidate is closest to you. To do this you need knowledge of political info.

The more knowledgeable you are the more issue proximity matters to your vote or it doesn’t because of people’s biases.

Bartels says it does matter having more knowledge because the less knowledgeable the more likely people are to support the incumbent (current holder of office)

Bittner says knowledge sometimes matters but social identity and issues matter too (Chicago school) = which points to an interaction

Question 58

Maxime Héroux-Legault

Answer 58

Context
2011 federal election (but the experiment was conducted in 2016 = Trump election). The Conservatives had been re-elected with a minority government in 2008 but faced a no-confidence vote by other parties trying to topple the gov resulting in the 2011 election. Even so, the Conservatives won the 2011 election forming the majority.

What?
The Impact of Political Knowledge on the Voting
Decision

When?
2023

Thesis: political knowledge will increase the impact of spatial considerations on the vote (H1) but will not modify the impact of cognitive shortcuts (H2) = informed voters rely on the spatial model (proximity to parties) more but all use cognitive shortcuts (not affect people’s preconceived notions) meaning H1 and H2 are true. The impact of your proximity to the candidate matters less if you have less knowledge.

Argument:
(1) The spatial model is cognitively demanding as voters are rationally motivated by a cost-benefit analysis of voting on their interests. The gains of voting depend on the voters’ proximity to the competing parties’ platforms. The costs of voting include information costs and the time it takes to vote (higher costs with fully informed voting).

(2) Unlike rational spatial voting, cognitive voting is non-rational.

(3) Leader evaluations (stronger among less informed voters to compensate for their limited ability to vote spatially)

(4) Builds off of Johnston 1992 =. sociotropic (extent that feds grow/reduce the economy) vs. egotropic voting (extent that indv finance improved by gov) = Voters are more likely to vote for the party they prefer or trust to manage the economy

(5) The more media we have, the more polarization in Canada but not people’s pre-conceived ideas because people will seek news sources and info in line with their preconceived ideas (Markus Prior)

(6) Media and the type of media consumed are not the most important variables what is most important is finances and the way the person identifies with the party (Polacko)

Question 59

Authors + Dates

Answer 59

Alan Cairns (1968)

Richard Johnston (2008)(1992)

Janine Brodie and Jane Jenson (1990)

Matthew Polacko, Simon Kiss, and Peter Graefe (2022)

Anthony Kevins and Stuart Soroka (2017)

Trimble, Linda, and Shannon Sampert (2004)

Maxime Héroux-Legault (2023)

Question 60

Testing Question
Polarized pluralism (what does it mean? How do authors interpret? Affect parties? Ability to engage sectional differences?

Answer 60

Polarized pluralism is an ideological division of parties in a two-party or multiparty system where their party platforms become more distinct/extremist, thus failing to cater to the median voter. Authors that interpret polarized pluralism are Polacko/Kiss/Gaefe and Kevins and Soroka. The ability to engage in sectional differences is addressed by Cairns and Johnston.

Question 61

Testing Question
Historical dominance of the liberal party (why majority federally? What do Polacko and Jenson say about the liberal dominance?)

Answer 61

Historical dominance of the liberal party because of the strong party ID base and because they are a brokerage party that caters to the median voter with their nationalist policy.

Question 62

Testing Question
What are the authors are saying bout class divisions and their translations in vote? (can we make an argument of a middle-class vote in Canada?)

Answer 62

Jenson says that there is little evidence that non-class is present in brokerage parties and Polacko echoes this thought by saying that there are distinctions between the brokerage parties and income (partisan/income sorting) left and low income vs. right and high income. Jenson says that Canada is not a middle-class society, this is supported by Polacko as the working class stopped supporting the Liberals after 1993.

Question 63

Testing Question
How do brokerage party fall into play with sectionalism, regional differences? How do brokerage parties try to mainstream themselves?

Answer 63

Cairns (geographic approach) and Johnston (structural approach). Brokerage parties mainstream themselves with the median voter.