New version page

TAMU POLS 315 - Exam II

Documents in this Course
Load more

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5 out of 15 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 15 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

Get Notes from Thursday 9/26How do U.S. parties compare in providing “choice”?Theory (General)What may explain greater “ideological distance”?Proportional representationLarge number of partiesHi propensity for coalition governmentHi socioeconomic inequalityAbsence of affluenceWhat the data showsLarge number of parties + proportional representational  more ideological distanceThe following updated US/UK comparison is based on codes produced in Spring 2012.Democrats 2008Social services -5Regulation -3Income tax +0Health care -3Average -2.75 (Moved further to the left since the 50’s & 60’s)Republicans 2008Social services +3Regulation +3Income tax +2Health care -1Average +2.25Labour Party 2010Social services -4Regulation -2Income tax -3Health care -4Average -3.25Conservatives 2010Social services -1Regulation +3Income tax +1Health care -3Average +0 Ideological distance 3.25 (Less than US)Gerald Pomper’s study of U.S. Party Platforms (1944-1976)First, divided 10,604 statements into:Rhetoric or Fact = 1/6Evaluation of Past Performance = 1/3Future Policy (Pledges) = 1/2Then divided the 547o pledges intoRhetorical (20%)General and value (22%)Specific enough to be checked (58%) 3/5Including pledges ofContinuity = 9%Goals = 19%Actions = 16%In their pledges..Republicans placed more emphasis on:a. defenseb. government (management of, reductions)emphazised “war/peace”; gov’t managementDemocrats placed more emphasis on:LaborWelfare[emphasized on policy; group policy]Other findings:Over ½ pledges were by only one partyAbout 1/3 were by both partiesOn remaining 1/6, parties were in direct conflictDo the American parties provide “enough” issue choice? (How much do we really want?)From Jack Dennis’s 1966 study of Wisconsin adults: attitudes toward political parties“the parties do more to confuse the issues than to provide a clear choice on them” 54% agree vs. 21% disagree“Things would be better if the parties took opposite stands on issues more than they do now” 31 agree vs. 43% disagreeFrom Herbert McClosky et al 1960; they found:Republican and democratic leaders were found further apart on the issues that grow out of their group identification and supportTheir followers differ only moderatelyResponsible Parties ReportThe Five Main Goals:1. More and better Organization and Complexity2. Greater Issue Clarity3. Centralization10/14American Parties were less well organized than the British PartiesBetter Organized than the average of comparative parties around the worldOrganizational ComplexityThese changes in party organization reflect environmental changes.1. The change from “modern” to “post-modern” (tech/computer revolution)2. The growth in competitiveness in previously non-competitive areas (South & New England)Exam #2 Tuesday, October 21Cumulative all lectures, readings, videos, etc40-50% over old material25-35% over readingsObjective & Short answeredReadings Covered – from first day of school through “What is the role of parties in government” 10/23Party Machines“so named because of their ruthless efficiency in converting raw resources into pure political power” – Scott and Hrebenarthose raw resources were public resources, such as jobs and contracts, handed out in return for political favors and support to the party and candidatesTheir objective:To assure their survival by controlling their environmentTo make certain that they won the electionsNegatives1. Public patronagethe power to appoint people to office or grant other favors, especially political ones.tax – payer fundedjobs depended on party loyalty and not capability to do the job2. Prefermentsbecome a problem when they involve government jobs or contracts by giving special advantage to companies for their party support3. Vote – stealing or buyingex: voting the dead4. Judge – buyingPositives1. Unofficial welfare organizationsfrom Civil War to 1930’shelp with jobs, housing, food by building a foundation of the poor and immigrants2. Helped Strengthen the business communityExamples of “Bosses”:W.M “Boss” Tweed, boss of Tammany Hall in New YorkPaper: New York Political MachineGangs of New York – Boss Tweed.flvIrish Immigrants “Vote Tamany”Frank Hague, Jersey City, Mayor 1917-1951Ed HongHuey Long – LouisianaRichard J. Daley – Mayor of ChicagoUndermining of Party Machines (1930’s and following)1. Merit Schemes (“Civil Service”)Took away the ability of parties to hand out patronage2. National Government’s growing involvement in welfare deliveryResulted in a decline of machine’s welfare functionReduction in “material incentives” “ideological incentives” more important machines (which were non-ideological)Richard Daley video:Who were the key actors?Richard Daley, Mayor of ChicagoChairman Daley of Chicago – Political MachineWhat were the resources that were controlled by the machine?Money, tax payersJobsTake care of the poor people and not the povertyWere machines good or bad for their own national party?Good in providing votes for the national partyGood, presidential candidates came and saw Mayor Daley because he won landslides and avalanches.They wanted his knowledge and approval, favorSeeking publicity and the WhitehouseMayor Daley put Kennedy in the white house winning Illinois electoral college votes.They could have been bad….Establishing a high dependency relation between the national party on the local partyStronger National Level (Centralization  APSA Committee RightDecentralization of powerThe extent to which the ultimate control over party decisions and discipline rests with levels other than the national level; the lower the level that ultimately controls decision-making, the more decentralized the party isIndicators:1. Control over communications (0-7);Low scores given to parties where national (not regional or local) level controls important media2. Administration of Discipline (0-4);Low scores given to parties where a national organ administers discipline over party members3. Selection of Legislative Candidates (1-9)low scores given to parties where selection is done by a national organ4. Allocation of Funds (0-6)low scores given to parties where party funds are collected and allocated primarily by the national level5. Selection of national party leader (0-8)low scores are given to parties with selection by a national party organ6. Formulation of Party Policy (0-7)low scores given to parties where policies are


View Full Document
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Exam II and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Exam II and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?