Blog Assignment #3, Due 2 pm, October 6.

Hi, everyone!  First some announcements and reminders:
1.  There will be no class on Monday, October 6, as I will be out of town on University business.  However, this blog assignment is still due then.
2.  Unfortunately, I will not have your exams available for return tomorrow (October 1).  Issues with the curve, professor incompetence, and just the sheer volume of exams (I grade them all myself) have made this impossible.  I understand this causes anxiety, and I apologize.  When I next return to class (October 8), I promise you will have your exams and the first two blog grades.
3.  Note also that deadlines are coming up for some of the easy points.  Meeting observation papers are due October 15, and journals on the West Virginia elections are due November 10.  Don't wait until the last minute to make sure to claim these easy points.
4.  We will be joined by a special guest for a brief time on October 8.  She will discuss some interesting internship opportunities in Charleston (for credit).

Now on to this week's assignment,  It focuses on the difficulties facing third parties (sometimes called minor parties) in elections in the states.  We'll concentrate in particular on the state legislature.  In most states (West Virginia is a very partial exception), the state is divided into districts of equal population, each of which elects one representative.  Whoever gets the most votes in a district wins that seat in the legislature.  There is no prize for coming in second or third.  Anyone who voted for any candidate but the winner gets no representation.

This provision is the key to why third parties have a difficult time.  Voters perceive (and major party candidates encourage voters to perceive) that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, so they instead for the major party candidate whose views are closest to their own ("the lesser of two evils").  Thus, even when a third party candidate garners some early support, that support usually melts away as election day approaches. 

While third party candidates face other obstacles, including the inability to attract campaign contributions, the lack of media coverage, and often being barred from candidate debates, all of those things stem from the single member plurality system.  Further, there are other problems with single member plurality.  For instance, having each legislator represent a particular geographic area means that representatives focus on that area and not the common good (perhaps resulting in useless government projects).  Also, the drawing of the legislative lines, often done by the legislature, can be controversial and is often done to advantage the party in power at the time (the drawing of lines to favor one group over another is called gerrymandering).  And, a system that encourages two parties means that each party will try to appeal to people from as much of the ideological spectrum as possible (it may not always seem that way, but, for instance, it explains Mitt Romney's move toward the center during the last months of the 2012 presidential campaign).  This means that parties don't take strong stands.  Finally, with just two parties winning seats, one party will always have a majority in any particular legislative body, meaning that it will control most of the power and not have to compromise with anyone else.

Many countries use a different system of representation called proportional representation.  If that system were used in the US, a state with 100 seats in one house of the legislature would not be divided into districts.  Rather, people in the state would vote for the party that they preferred, and seats in the legislature would be awarded in proportion to the number of votes for each party.  So, if a party got 20% of the votes, it would get 20 seats in the legislative body.  A party getting only 5% of the votes would still get 5 seats in the legislature.  This encourages votes for third parties.  They have a chance to gain representation in the legislature, show citizens what they can do, and then perhaps improve their representation the next time around.  This system also removes incentives to exclude minor parties from debates and news coverage, and it encourages donors to support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whether they can win.  Proportional representation also means that gerrymandering isn't a problem (there are no district lines to mess with), legislators represent everyone rather than a particular district so they don't focus on things like bringing an unnecessary new bridge to their district (and getting the whole state to pay for it), and it encourages parties to take clear stands on issues.  It also results in a situation where, in most cases, no one party has a majority in the legislature, so they have to form coalitions with other parties in order to govern.

Proportional representation does have its disadvantages as well.  Sometimes, geographic representation prevents an area with a minority of interests (maybe coal country) from being ignored by the rest of the state.  There is no assurance that party tickets will include people from the poorest areas, so they may not get representation either.  In some cases, proportional representation also encourages single interest parties, which may just be disruptive to governance.  Finally, the coalitions that form are often highly unstable and dysfunctional.  At least in a single member plurality system, you're likely to know who is in charge.

Here is a paper on single member plurality, proportional representation, and other related electoral systems. 
http://www.lwvutah.org/Studies/Election%20Study%20final%20for%20web-site.pdf
It is from the League of Women Voters.  It's got lots of detail and probably leans toward something other than single member plurality (so it's a bit biased).  Your assignment is to read the paper, read my comments above, look for other arguments and evidence (there's a ton out there), and then respond.  Specifically, should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections?  If so, what type of system should be employed (consider proportional representation and the other systems discussed in the League of Women Voters paper)?  One big issue that you'll want to consider is whether a system that encourages minor parties (like proportional representation) is a good thing or a bad thing.  Be sure to use reasons and evidence in your response.  Again, better responses address those of classmates (politely, of course), make original points, and bring in outside material.  Comments are due by 2:00 pm on Monday, October 6.

Good luck!--NB

Lecture Notes #2

POLS 220

Berch

Fall 2014

 

Interest Groups

 

Review:  Two Major Ways For Citizens to Influence Government

A.       Elections

B.      Interest Groups

C.      US emphasizes interest groups; weak parties.

D.      Within US, party strength and competition influence interest group importance

 

Interest Groups

A.       Where there’s an interest, there may or may not be an interest group

1.        Demonstrate free rider

2.       Implication:  not all groups form; there’s a class bias—free rider has major effect

3.       Contradicts pluralist theory

B.       So, level of interest group strength is unimportant unless we know which groups are strong

C.      Banking, insurance, and legal interest groups tend to exert quiet power

 

Parties and Elections

 

Decline of Parties

A.       Campaign styles—labor intensive vs. capital intensive

B.      Open primaries (two senses)

1.        Open vs. smoke-filled rooms

2.       Closed vs. open vs. blanket (Supreme Court intervenes)

C.       Patronage reduced in importance (most places)

D.      Welfare function reduced in importance

E.       Non-partisan local elections

1.        Maybe not—Seattle story

2.       Not much of a factor in the Northeast

 

What about third parties?

A.       Problems

1.        Money

2.       Publicity

3.       Single-member plurality

4.       Election laws and administration

B.       BUT:  1990 may have changed things

1.        Hickel

2.       Sanders (and reelected)

3.       Weicker

4.       Can they govern?

C.       1994 was a good year, too

1.        Sanders reelected again

2.       Connecticut and Alaska parties put up good efforts

3.       Independent governor elected in Maine

4.       Third parties and independents had major effects in NM (Greens), OK (Gov. race), UT (Cong), NY (Gov)

5.       1996—scattered victories in local elections

6.       1998—another good year (THE MIND, and King reelected)

7.       2000—some local successes, but lesser evil problem arises, too.

8.       2002—third parties held their own

9.       2004—less impact (due to 2000)

10.   2006—interesting twist (Lieberman)

11.   2008—not a big year for third parties

12.   2010—Rhode Island win, other close calls

13.   2012—King is back!

14.   2014—too early to tell, but Chafee isn’t running for reelection; look at Kansas and Alaska

Lecture Notes #1

POLS 220

Berch

Fall 2014

 

Introduction

 

Overview of Course

A.       Setting/Rules of Game/Context/Federalism

B.       How Citizens Try to Influence Government:  Parties and Elections

C.       Who They Influence:  Institutions

D.       Policy Outcomes

 

Why Study State and Local Politics?

A.       Look at Newspapers

B.      Look at WVU tuition, admissions standards—demographics, geography matter

C.      Why are welfare payments higher in Connecticut than Mississippi?  Wealth and ideology

D.      Why does Idaho have a higher percentage of women in the state legislature than New York?  Rules matter, and so does culture.

E.       Why does New York’s legislature make fewer technical mistakes than West Virginia’s?

F.       Why is voter turnout higher in Maine than in Missouri?  Political culture, rules.

G.     States make a great laboratory; similar but not the same.

 

Why Have States Anyway?

 

Political Culture—Elazar

A.       Individualistic—politics as marketplace

B.      Moralistic—politics to improve society

C.      Traditionalistic—politics to maintain the existing order

 

 

Federalism

 

A History of Federalism

A.       Origins

1.        Problems with Articles of Confederation

a.        Lack of national unity

b.      Lack of coordination

2.        Options

a.        Unitary system

b.      Confederation

c.       Federalism

B.       10^th Amendment

C.       Federalists vs. anti-Federalists

1.        Alien and Sedition Acts

2.       Interposition and Nullification—VA and KY Resolutions

D.       Marbury v. Madison

E.       Louisiana Purchase

F.       McCulloch v. Maryland

G.     Civil War

H.      13^th Amendment

I.        14^th Amendment

J.        15^th Amendment

K.      16^th Amendment

L.       Government Assumes Welfare Role

M.    Civil Rights Decisions

 

Fiscal Federalism

A.       Major source of money for states and localities

B.      Two ways of classifying different types

1.        Level of discretion

a.        Categorical grants—least discretion, very specific purposes

b.      Block grants—moderate discretion—general areas—most money in these

c.       General Revenue Sharing—total state or local discretion—good points and bad points.  Abolished in mid 1980s

2.        Method of allocation

a.        Project—many categorical grants but not much money—application process, class bias

b.      Formula grants—virtually all block grants, some categorical, and (before abolition) all revenue sharing

C.       Conditions of aid allow policy control that cannot be mandated

1.        Speed limit enforcement

2.       Drinking age

3.       Blood Alcohol level

4.       No Child Left Behind

5.       Extortion?  Or good public policy?

 

The Reagan Years

A.       Irony:  let states do more, but give them less money

B.      Some movement from categorical to block grants

C.      Elimination of Revenue sharing

D.      Reduction in overall grant money—largely restored in Bush (Papa) administration.

E.       Consequences

1.        States and localities do more with less

2.       Fiscal crises

3.       Governors are blamed

4.       Attempts at creativity

a.        WV higher education

b.      Oregon health care

c.       Not likely to be enough to compensate

 

Some States Do Better Than Others

A.       Huge variation from state to state

B.      Some is obvious—AK, WY highways

C.      Small states did better in early 1980s—ganged up on California

D.      Large states did better in mid 1980s—critical mass

E.       Not California—homogeneity, unity important

F.       Lobbying offices

G.     Governor in Congress—knows ropes, sees potential (governor is growing in importance)

H.      Did Byrd matter?

1.        Committee assignments, seniority don’t figure in model

2.       We notice project grants, but money is in formula grants

3.       Byrd didn’t do grants so much as federal expenditures

4.       Maybe Byrd was the exception that proved the rule

 

Summary of History

A.       Shift from state to national control

B.      Shift from layer cake (dual) to marble cake (cooperative) federalism

 

Larger and Smaller Governments

A.       Regional Bodies

1.        Relates to question of why states

2.       Examples:

a.        NW Power Supply

b.      Port Authority of NY and NJ

c.       Appalachian Regional Commission

3.        Is this a trend?

B.       Localities

1.        Dillon’s Rule

2.       Home Rule

3.       Lots of state-to-state variation--$ is often key

4.       Most centralized states:  DE, NM, WV, HI

5.       Least centralized states:  CO, OR, TX, NY, NH

6.       Why?  Not sure, perhaps homogeneity

7.       WV:  Caperton tried to change through amendment, voters turned down