Poli Sci Notes #2

Articles of Confederation (1777) ● Individual states were initially wary of a strong central government ○ This was true even as the revolutionary war (1775-83) continued after the July 4, 1776 Declaration of independence ● The second continental congress adopted a week “articles of confederation” in November 1777 ○ Though official passage would not even come until Maryland passed it in 1781 due to border disputes with Virginia ● The articles proved to make governing and conducting the war difficult ○ Lacked a national executive or judicial branch to enforce laws ○ Even congress could not impose federal taxes or regulate commerce domestically and internationally ● Problems led to the article's replacement by the current US constitution in 1789 Federalist No. 10 (1787) ● Seeking to have the newly drafted US constitution approved by the 13 colonies, alexander hamilton, James Madison, and John Tay published a series of articles (85 in all) explaining the logic of the constitution ● In Federalist No. 10, James madison was concerned about preventing the possibility the “violence of faction” could break the new country apart ○ People have prosperity to “fall into mutual animosities” even based on “frivolous and fanciful distinctions” ■ In particular, social differences in terms of wealth (such as whether one is a creditor or debtor), sources of wealth, or religion can lead individuals to ally with others in a similar position ● Factions can be in the majority or the minority ○ Minority factions can be controlled by “republican principles” of majority rule ■ But if private interests are able to organize a majority faction, it might disregard the public good, the right of others, and the rules of justice (“tyranny of the majority”) ● Trying to eliminate factionalism is itself dangerous ○ One way to avoid factionalism by taking over the freedom to organize factions ■ This involves eliminating factions through pure repression and is worse than the disease ○ A second way might be by making society uniform, which madison sees as impractical ■ In particular, he is concerned with threats to property rights ■ He argues that inequality of wealth drives people to succeed and protecting their diversity of talents should be the “first object of government” ● Rather than eliminating factionalism, it is better to control its effects ○ This can be done through a “republic”

■ Which defines as a sizable representative democracy, no longer a monarchy ● Minimizing the impact of factionalism requires avoiding direct democracy ○ Representatives who are chosen by the public are more likely to have to appeal to the common good ■ Private citizens are more likely to act for selfish motives ● Larger democracies are also a way to minimize the problems of factionalism ○ Larger countries are more likely to be able to find more fit leadership ■ They are less likely to show local prejudice ■ They are less likely to engage in corrupt practices ○ The greater the number of constituents each representative has, the more likely there are to be multiple competing factions ● But larger democracies can have the downside of producing representatives with so many constituents they are insufficiently aware of local circumstances ○ The existence of state and local legislatures under the constitution helps address this problem ■ Produces a combination of large and small representative districts ○ Faction at a state level may produce negative policies, but these measures are unlikely to spread ■ Examples of such negative policies for madison include paper money, abolition of debts, and equal division of property Questions raised by Federalist No. 10 ● In what ways does Madison try to limit direct democracy ○ Are these limits necessary? ■ Is direct democracy really more rifle with factionalism? ■ Is Madison focused too much on preserving the power of the position of wealthy property owners, for example? ● Do you agree that the size of a nation reduces factionalism? ○ Why does Nigeria, the world's seventh-largest country, face factionalism? ● Has representative democracy avoided factionalism ○ Have factions been avoided? ■ Did the rise of political parties make Federalist 10 moot? ■ Would things be worse in direct democracy? ● Has modern society/technology changed the validity of some of the main points of Federalist 10? Federalist No. 51 (1788) ● James Madison argues for a system of separation of powers in order to preserve liberty ○ Several independent “departments” are to be created by the constitution ■ House ■ Senate ■ Presidency ■ Judiciary

○ Is this a modern necessity? Counter-majoritarianism in the constitution ● Concerns over “tyranny of the Majority” has meant that the US constitution, like virtually every constitution, includes a number of the “counter-majority” provisions: ● A bill of rights ○ Defining areas neither the federal nor (since the 14th amendment) state governments are allowed to legislate over ● An unelected supreme court with lifetime appointments ○ Intended to keep judicial decisions independent from popular passions of the moment ● Federalism ○ The power of the central government to legislate nationally is curtailed by the devolution of power to the 50 states, with the federal government mainly controlling foreign relations, national defense, and interstate commerce ■ Though the interstate class is often broadly interpreted and federal funds can be used to incentive states to follow national policies ○ In contrast, centralized governments are generally known as unitary states ● Composition of the senate ○ Each state has the same number of representatives ■ So Wyoming has 290,000 people per senator; California has 19 million ● electoral college ○ The presidency is determined by electors selected on a state-by-state basis; with the number of electors determined by the number of senators and representatives a state has ■ Also, this tends to be done in a winner take all manner, except in Maine and Nebraska ● Difficulty in passing constitutional amendments ○ Requires ⅔ vote of the house and senate to propose (proposals, in theory, can also come through a convention convened by ⅔ of states) and ¾ of states to ratify through their legislatures ■ This has been done only 17 times since the passage of the bill of rights in 1791 ● The filibuster, which often means a 60 votes supermajority is needed in the 100 member senate to pass certain types of legislation, is not part of the constitution, but rather senate by-laws Questions regarding counter-majoritarianism ● When is it necessary and justified to preserve the rights of groups not in the majority? ● Can it be justified as simply a means of ensuring some types of legislation has broad support? ○ If so, under what conditions? ● Can it be justified as simply a means of slowing down the legislative process to ensure that measures are well considered?

○ Again under what conditions ● When does counter-majoritarianism cross a line and simply be anti-majoritarian that is anti-democratic? ○ How do you know when the line has been crossed? ○ Do you think the line has been crossed in the US at all, or are the measures? Questions regarding nation-state formation in the US ● At what point in its history can the US be considered to have become a nation-state? ○ Independence (1776)? ○ Adoption of the US constitution (1797)? ○ After the Civil War (1865) ○ Sometime later? ● What factors allowed the US to become a nation-state? ○ Anti-colonial struggle? ○ Internal warfare? ○ Expansion of a central government? ○ Public education? ○ Other factors/events? American Nationalism: ● Nationalism in the United States is often described as a form of civic nationalism ○ Civic nationalism defines national identity in terms of its ideals, especially in terms of democracy, freedom, human rights, equality, or economic opportunities ● Other ideas of national identity that can be found in the US include… ○ Cultural nationalism which argues for a shared national culture ○ Ethnic or religious nationalism, or nativism, links American identity to a particular ethnic or religious group, especially those associated with early European settlers in the country Presidential systems: ● Head of the executive branch (usually a “President”) directly elected by the voting public ○ They serve both as a head of government (having administrative power) and as a head of state (symbolically representing the nation) ● President elected for a fixed-length term (usually 4-6 years), with a vice president or other designated official serving out the rest of the term should the president be unable to ○ The main difference between presidential systems is term lengths and any limits on the election (which are fairly common) ● There is a strong separation between the executive and the legislative branch (usually known as a “congress”) Parliamentary Systems: (easier to pass legislation) ● The Head of the executive branch (usually a “Prime Minister”) is elected indirectly by the legislature (usually known as a “parliament”)

● Prime Minister ○ Head of government ○ Elected by a majority of the house of commons, although technically appointed by the monarch upon recommendation of parliament ○ New elections every 5 years, but can come early by a ⅔ vote of parliament ■ Until the fixed-term parliament act of 2011, the PM needed to retain majority support and could also call early elections to take advantage of partys popularity ● Cabinet ○ Selected by prime minister, traditionally from among the members of parliament Legislative branch: Parliament ● Lover house: house of commons ○ Votes for house of commons are based on plurality (“first past the post”) in 650 districts ○ Has been the main legislative body since the parliament act 1911 ○ Elects prime ministers by majority vote ● Upper house: house of lords ○ An unelected, body currently with 798 members who traditionally can delay legislation, but not block it ○ Membership was previously dominated by aristocratic “hereditary peers” who inherited their position based on birth, but all of 92 of these were expelled by reforms in 1999 ■ Most members are now life peers appointed by the monarch on advice of the prime minister of the house of lords appointments commissions, while another 26 are bishops of the church of england Judicial Branch: Supreme Court of the UK ● Established in 2009 ○ Replaced the lords of appeal in ordinary (Law Lords) a subset of the house of lords that acted as a final courts of appeals ● Consists of 12 justices appointed ○ Life appointments, although with mandatory retirement at the age of 70 or 75 depending on date of appointment ● Has only limited power of judicial review, and cannot overturn acts of parliament Local Government ● The UK has strengthened the autonomy of regions outside of england by creating local governing bodies since 1998 ○ Scottish parliament ○ Northern ireland assembly ○ National assembly for wales ● England does not have a separate parliament (though it has been discussed as a future possibility) but rather a series of regional assemblies

UK Politicall Parties: ● Conservative party ○ Center-right party of current prime minister boris johnson ○ Officially the conservative and the unionist party, it is also known as the tory party and it traces its roots back to 1678 ● Labour Party ○ A center left party that is the nations second largest ○ Founded in 1900, emerging from the organized labor movement as a social democratic alternative to the liberal party ● Liberal democrats ○ Formed as a center to center left force from the merger of the liberal party and social democratic party in 1988 it has occasionally played a “kingmaker” role in giving one of the 2 larger parties a majority ● Other parties ○ Eurosceptic, right wing populist UK Independence party formed in 1993, and won its first parliamentary seat in 2015, though it has recently been eclipsed by a brexit party formed in 2019 by former UKIP leader nigel Farage Presidential vs. Parliamentary systems: ● Presidential systems are usually said to have a stronger separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches ○ Both prime ministers and cabinet members remain part of the legislature in parliamentary systems ○ Unlike presidential systems, there are usually no term limits for a prime minister either ■ They stay in the office for as long as they can command a majority ● But there are some important checks on the PM’s powers ○ They can be voted out at any time by parliament for any reason ■ This can be done quickly and easily in contrast to the extended and difficult presidential impeachment process ● Pms are frequently required to address parliament directly, answering questions and engaging in debate ○ Presidents usually address congress only through occasional formal speeches such as the “state of union” address ● Parliamentary systems are much less likely to suffer “gridlock” ○ PMs always have to maintain a majority whereas presidents offer must work with an opposition-led congress ■ PMs can also call votes of confidence, forcing coalition members to face new elections if the PM loses ● Presidential systems focus more on individuals, while parliamentary systems focus more on parties and platforms ○ Presidential elections are often centered on contrasting the personalities of the canditates rather than issues in the party platform

● Parliaments often do not cut short the terms of unpopular leaders ○ A single party parliamentary majority will resists early elections unless they believe the timing is favoranle for themselves ● Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart: ● Presidentialism is not necessarily more “winner-takes-all” ○ Many parliaments are elected by plurality which give a party a majority of seats even with less than a majority votes ○ Congressional independence meanwhile can encourage coalition building between parties in legislature ● The type of presidential systems is important in terms of stability ○ Shorter terms (such as 4 years rather than six) reduces the problems of fixed terms making it hard to remove an unpopular incumbent ○ The president should have limited legislative power ■ Particularly, he or she should not have strong decree-making powers ○ Political parties should be fewer in number and more disciplined ○ Makes it more harder if trying to pass legislation through a 2 party system ■ Example: Trump and Biden ○ Reducing “gridlock”, which can be harmful when terms are longer Questions regarding Ecexutive Systems: ● Is the greater focus on personal characteristics in a presidential campaign an advantage or a disadvantage? ○ Is there not enough of a focus on issues under presidential systems? ● How do checks and balances work within a parliamentary system? ○ Is the relative lack of separation of the branches an advantage or disadvantage ● Do you see presidential systems as more likely to become unstable, as Linz suggests? ○ Is the US an exception to this rule? Why or why Not? ○ Can presidential systems be made more stable, as Mainwaring and Shugart suggest ● What other advantages and disadvantages of presidential systems do you see ○ What about parliament? Electoral systems: ● Single Member District Systems ○ Candidates run as individuals, with one winner per race (“single-member districts” or single member constituencies”) ○ Under “Plurality” systems, in each district, the candidate with the most votes wins (aka “first past the post”) ■ Plurality: whoever gets the most votes ■ Under a variation known as the “double ballot” or majoritarianism) there can be a “runoff” election between the top two contenders from the first round, such as when no candidate gets a majority ● Runoff: somebody gets a majority ● Proportional Representation (PR) systems

○ Parties are allocated a number of seats according to the percentage of the vote in a multi-member district ■ E.g., a party with 20% of the vote would win 20 seats of a 100 member district ○ Candidates run as part of a party list ■ Under “closed list” systems that public votes only for parties, not individual candidates, and the party decides the rank order of candidates on the list ■ Under “open list” systems, voters determines the rank order of canditates, rather than the party ○ PR tends toward multi-party systems, since small parties can still win seats in the legislature ○ Gerrymandering and unequal districts are usually avoided ■ Gerrymandering: if you are doing single member distinct, you have to draw the district lines, you can draw them where your party will be more powerful than the others, so you get majority rule, increase the efficiency of ours so our votes get seats and there’s are wasted ○ Unlike SMD systems, PR systems do not give constituents a single, clear local representative ○ PR systems vary according to district size (number of seats elected in a particular district) ■ Bigger Districts in theory allow smaller parties to win seats (e.g in a 10 member district parties need 10% of the vote per seat, in a 100-member district, they only need 1%) ○ PR systems can also have a “barrier clause” setting a minimum vote percentage needed to win a seat ■ Usually set between 2% and 10%, the measure seeks to discourage very small parties ● Ranked-choice (aka preferential voting, Instant runoff, or Irish ballot) ○ Less common are voting systems that have citizens rank order individual candidates (marking them as 1, 2, 3, etc. in order of preference) with votes transferring accordingly as candidates with the lowest vote totals are eliminated ■ If used for a single member districts it is known as alternative vote or instant-runoff vote system ■ If used for multi-member districts it is known as single transferable vote system ● Mixed member segmented systems ○ Many systems combine single member districts and proportional representation ■ If the same legislative body has some members elected by single member districts and some by PR then it is a “mixed Member” body ■ If different bodies are elected different ways (e.g. the upper chamber by plurality and the lower chamber by PR) it is a “Segmented system” “Duverger’s Law”: