Comp Gov Notes - Trevor Schmidt PDF

9/11/24- Late Start Winner takes all system ○ Single member districts ○ Plurality rule ○ One voter, one vote ○ Two party systems are likely-but not always- to emerge(Duverger’s law: # of political parties= size of DM=1 ○ Britain, Canada and the...

9/11/24- Late Start Winner takes all system ○ Single member districts ○ Plurality rule ○ One voter, one vote ○ Two party systems are likely-but not always- to emerge(Duverger’s law: # of political parties= size of DM=1 ○ Britain, Canada and the US are primary examples ○ Pro- Tend to produce a majoritarian winner(High stability, high accountability) ○ Con- Leave a lot of voters without representation= wasted voted(Not idea for countries with religious or racial cleavages)\ Proportional Representation systems ○ Larger district magnitude ○ Proportional rule ○ The party can be closed or open ○ Voters may have more than one vote ○ Multi party systems are more likely ○ Most continental European countries use variants of PR systems ○ Pro-Voters are almost always represented. Religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities get represented ○ Con: Coalition governments more likely. Small parties may end up becoming king-makers. Lower accountability 9/16/24 The Us healthcare is a big anomaly- it is very expensive health care per person. When compared to other countries the US has disproportionately high spending on healthcare per person. Presidential vs parliamentary power How strong is the executive power? Parliament:Unicameral vs bicameral -Does each chamber have a veto over the other? Varieties of democracy: Coalition Governments Unitary state vs federal state Party discipline National referendum(electorate vs legislature) Strong courts The structure of the government can determine the amount of veto points parts of government has Ellen immerguts question ○ She says that voters in france, sweden, and switzerland all wanted affordable health care, but that their health care systems ended up becoming very different ○ She then asks ,why? She focused on the idea of veto points Political institutions filter interest groups' power differently. Some institutional; designs magnify the veto power of minority groups such as medical associations while some designs might minimize their power. The cast of characters in health policy:Voters, legislators, the government, vested interests(medical industry) Variations in healthcare systems among wealthy democracies:A checklist Is enrollment in healthcare insurance compulsory? Are health insurance schemes public(non-profit) or private(for profit) How many insurance schemes/ companies are there? How is the price of medical procedure decided?Government?Negotiation between medical service providers?Market or something else? Are medical service providers public employees or not? Who pays the insurance premiums? National Health care systems Funded by general tax revenue. The system covers the cost of medical services provided by public service providers Pricing is set by the government Private providers exist and they set their brown price. There are private insurance schemes to cover additional services(often provided by employers) Countries: Britain, Canada, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc. Social Insurance systems Non-Profit health insurance scheme Funded by enrollees and employers contributions  There may or may not be government subsidies Medical service providers can be both public and private Patients can choose their own doctors Pricing of medical procedures and drugs are negotiated between providers and insurers. ○ France, Germany,Japan etc. Public health insurance systems Switzerland- No public scheme but private insurance is affordable. Government makes enrollment obligatory and regulated the pricing United states- Public schemes are only available for the elderly and the poor. For profit insurance plans for the rest. Pricing-Neither market nor public negotiations. France sweden and switzerland Voters wanted affordable healthcare in all three countries but medical doctors were against socialized healthcare in all three countries Politically speaking, medical doctors were strongest in sweden. They successfully regulated the number of physicians(to reduce competition) Veto Points The Swedish system did not have many veto points. Once the majority party decided to legislate something, even a powerful medical association could not stop it because they had no access to any veto point. The French system had lots of veto points. However the French rules of the political game changed frequently. Contrast between sweden and US Sweden:Parliamentary, uni caramel, unitary state, no referendum. Prime minister is the party leader of the majority party in parliament. Her cabinet proposes legislative bills US: President, Bi cameral, federal, no national referendum. Individual legislators propose legislative bills, and committees decide when to submit them to the floor. 9/18/24 First test 23rd, watch videos from 11th How electoral rules and the welfare state affect voter turnout and policy outcome A few questions ○ Relative to other wealthy democracies, does the US have a smaller or larger welfare state? ○ What might be the reason? ○ What is the political consequence of low electoral turnout? ○ Are you interested in politics? Do you feel motivated to turn up to vote? Current theories about why the US redistributes little ○ Some scholars consider factors such as ethnic heterogeneity, the belief in self-help, religion in the US to be possible causes of the Small Welfare State in the US. ○ Others have argued that the US politicians are captives of the super-rich (this could be related to the US electoral system) ○ Today, we will focus on how electoral rules and ‘state inclusiveness’ affect political participation and redistribution Effects of electoral systems ○ Political scientists have always been curious about potential effects of electoral systems ○ Intriguing correlations: PR systems have larger welfare states and better female political representation than winner takes all(First past the post system, FPTP ○ Scholars suspect this has something to do with the electoral systems Winner take all system(FPTP) and their effects Geography (=location of voters) matters in FPTP Systems. ○ Because, historically, industrial workers were concentrated into few locations (=fewer districts), they would be represented to a much lower extent in FPTPs. Weak Labor Party=>Less Spending for Workers=>Smaller Welfare State ○ In FPTPs, politicians want to tax people outside their districts and spend the tax dollars in their districts. Alber and Kohler on state inclusiveness and voter turnout ○ When citizens feel that their government doesn't care about them– Lower turnout ○ Low turnout— It is voters from low income and disadvantaged groups who stay out of elections  ○ Politicians will ignore these groups— their policy decisions will be titled against these groups Albert and Kohler's argument ○ They think that the nature of welfare state matters ○ When the welfare state is universalistic and provides benefits and services to everyone in the society, it creates an inclusive state. ○ Everyone will see his/her stake in public policy voter turnout goes up. ○ The US state is only inclusive to elderly citizens. Why don't Americans vote so much? ○ Alber and Kohler would say the US welfare state structure and voter registration (They use the age gap in the US as part of their argument) ○ Are they right? Do they get the big picture? Fewer polling stations Geography, one has to go to drive and vote Are there active efforts to lower turnouts? Are Alber and Kohler right? ○ They argue that the inclusiveness of the state affects turnout. Lower turnout then makes the state even more skewed against redistribution. ○ Which is first? Low turnout in a less inclusive state (small welfare state)? Or a small welfare state with low turnout? The role of money in politics ○ There are many other rules in the electoral game such as campaign finance laws ○ Whether citizens use money for individual campaigns or parties also affects the amount of money needed for electoral campaigns What about women in politics? ○ Scholars tried to explain why there were so few female politicians in SMDs in different ways. ○ Voters don’t want to lose their votes on a female candidate if there’s only one representative in their district. ○ Two party systems in SMDs are not conducive to party competition. In PR, it’s easy for a challenger party to emerge. The Green Party, for instance, “stole” lots of female votes from established parties prompting them to compete to win female votes. More women ○ Left-leaning parties normally start recruiting more women. In countries where left-leaning parties/unions are weak, one sees fewer female politicians. Because SMDs have weaker left-parties, hence fewer women. ○ MEA: When it is financially lucrative to become a politician, more ambitious men want to become politicians? YET counter-intuitively, more men means less competitive elections?