Political
Science 575 Professor Greg Schmidt
Fall
2007 Phone: 753-7039
DuSable
464 e-mail:
gschmidt@niu.edu
M
3:30-6:10 p.m.
Office: Zulauf 426
Hours: M 9:30 – 11:00 a.m.
SEMINAR IN COMPARATIVE
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES:
Electoral and Party
Systems
This seminar provides a
comparative introduction to party and electoral systems. After a brief introduction to the course and
some key indicators, we will examine party systems in established and emerging
democracies, some general issues in the study of electoral systems, and the
operation of the principal types of electoral systems worldwide. In the second half of the course, students
will present country case reviews of electoral systems and profiles of specific
elections. We will also explore
electoral engineering and the impact of electoral systems for the descriptive
representation of women. Throughout the course there will be an
interplay between general theories and specific cases.
Students
who wish to audit this course are welcome if they register for three hours of
POLS 590 for this purpose. Auditors are
expected to regularly attend class and encouraged to do the readings. They are also invited to participate in class
discussions if they have done the corresponding readings.
Seminar Requirements and
Policies
1.
Each
week all seminar participants will complete a set of common readings. Most of the readings are listed in the course
outline. Additional readings on
electoral systems in specific countries will be assigned for the weeks of
November 12 and 19. All readings are in
Farrell’s book, will be available on electronic reserve, or will be passed out in
class.
I
reserve the right to make reasonable adjustments to the syllabus.
2. Class Participation. The seminar format will be taken seriously. It is essential that students come to each
class meeting prepared to discuss the readings, as well as the country case reviews
and electoral profiles prepared by their classmates. General class participation, based on quantity
and especially quality, will account for 20 percent of the final grade.
3. Exam. An in-class, closed book exam scheduled for October
29 will cover the material presented up to that point. The format will be short-answer and essay. A list of potential questions will be
distributed at least one week before the exam.
4. Country Case Review. During the latter half of the course, each
student will write a short paper (maximum 5 pages) reviewing a case study of
the electoral system in a specific country in light of the general issues
treated in the course. The student also will
lead the class discussion of the respective country.
Most
of the case studies can be found in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, eds., The Politics of Electoral Systems (
Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Israel,
Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, and Spain. (I would rather that students not review
Countries
will be assigned no later than October 22.
Students will select cases in an order determined by random
numbers. The completed papers must be
e-mailed to the instructor and fellow students no later than Friday, November 9
at 5 p.m. The reviews and corresponding
readings
will
be discussed in class on November 12 and 19.
Grades will be based on the written work and performance during the
class discussion. In making their oral
presentations, reviewers may find it useful to present their key findings and
arguments in a reader-friendly outline.
5. Electoral Profile. Each student also will complete an electoral
profile of up to 10 pages on any country with competitive elections for which
there is adequate data. (However, a
student may not do the country case review and the electoral profile on the
same country.) The instructions for the
electoral profile are attached. The
profiles must be sent to the instructor and fellow students by e-mail no later
than Sunday, November 25 at 5 p.m. They
will be discussed in class on November 26 and December 3. Grades will be primarily based on the written
work, though the oral presentation will also be taken into account.
6. Course Grade. The following weights will be used in computing
final grades:
Class Participation 20%
Exam
30%
Country Case Review 20%
Electoral Profile 30%
-----
100%
Course
grades will be distributed as follows:
Final Average Final Grade
93% and above A
90-92% A -
87-89%
B+
83-86% B
80-82%
B-
70-79%
C
60-69%
D
Below
60% F
In
grading, I will abide by the standards adopted by the Political Science
Graduate Committee. A grade of
"A" is reserved for those students whose written and oral work is of
the highest quality: thorough, creative, well-substantiated, insightful, and
analytical. "A" grades are
earned by seminar participants who understand that graduate education is to a
large extent self-education. During
their graduate careers these students will do much more than fulfill formal
requirements.
A
grade of "A-" can be earned by seminar participants who demonstrate
most, but not all, of the qualities listed in the preceding paragraph.
A
grade of "B+" is given for written and oral work that demonstrates a
good grasp of the material.
A
grade of "B" indicates satisfactory written and oral work.
A
grade of "B-" is given to students whose performance meets only
minimal expectations at the graduate level.
I will not recommend these students for the Ph.D. program.
A
grade of "C" means that the student's performance is less than
adequate for graduate study in the Department of Political Science. This grade will make it more difficult for
the student to maintain the minimum 3.00 GPA needed to avoid academic probation
and dismissal.
Grades
of "D" and "F" are given in those rare cases when a student
makes little or no effort to meet the course requirements.
7. Academic
Integrity. Seminar participants are
expected to comply with NIU and Department of Political Science policies
regarding academic integrity and plagiarism.
Please see the NIU Graduate Catalog and the Department of Political
Science Graduate Handbook. Any suspicion
of academic misconduct will be treated in accordance with university and
departmental policies and
procedures.
8. Adjustments in Course
Schedule. I will do my best to
follow the schedule outlined below, but I reserve the right to make reasonable
adjustments with adequate warning if unforeseeable or
uncontrollable
circumstances (e.g. weather, illness, travel) so warrant. It is not fair, however, to change the
schedule simply to accommodate the preferences of some seminar participants
because
other
students almost inevitably suffer.
COURSE OUTLINE
AUGUST
27
Introduction
to Course
Some
Key Indicators
Rein
Taagepera and Matthew Soberg Shugart, Seats
and Votes: The Effects and Determinants
of Electoral Systems (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp.
19-20, 68, 77-81, 104-108.
SEPTEMBER
10
Party
Systems I: Established Democracies
John
Kenneth White, “What is a Political Party?,” in Richard S. Katz and William
Crotty, eds., Handbook of Party Politics
(
Alan
Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),
pp. 147-175, 184-202.
David M. Farrell, Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (Houndmills,
Basingstoke,
Rein
Taagepera, “The Number of Parties as a Function of Heterogeneity and Electoral
System,” Comparative Political Studies
32-5 (August 1999), pp. 531-548.
SEPTEMBER
17
Party
Systems II: Beyond Established
Democracies
Scott
Mainwaring and Mariano Torcal, “Party System Institutionalization and Party
System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization,” in Katz and Crotty,
eds., Handbook of Party Politics,
pp.204-227.
Philippe C. Schmitter,
“Parties Are Not What They Once Were,” in Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther,
eds., Political Parties and Democracy
(
Gary M. Reich,
“Coordinating Party Choice in Founding Elections: Why Timing Matters,” Comparative Political Studies 34-10 (December 2001), pp. 1237-1261.
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 164-65 (remainder of Section 7.2).
SEPTEMBER
24
The
Study of Electoral Systems
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 1-18.
Andrew
Reynolds, Ben Reilly, and Andrew Ellis, 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook (
Elections
and Democracy
Jørgen Elklit and Andrew
Reynolds, “A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality,” Democratization
12-2 (April 2005), pp. 147-162.
Andreas Schedler, “The Menu
of Manipulation,” Journal of Democracy
13-2 (April 2002), pp. 36-50.
Andrew Reynolds and Marco
Steenbergen, “How the World Votes: The
Political Consequences of Ballot Design, Innovation and Manipulation,” Electoral Studies 25-3, (September
2006), pp. 570-598.
Richard G. Niemi and
Paul S. Herrnson, “Beyond the Butterfly:
The Complexity of
David
Samuels and Richard Snyder, “The Value of a Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective,”
British Journal of Political Science
31-4 (October 2001), pp. 651-671.
OCTOBER
1
Plurality
Systems
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 19-48.
Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan,
and Jennifer van Heerde, “The United States of America: Perpetual Campaigning in the Absence of
Competition,” in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, eds., The Politics of Electoral Systems (
Gary
W. Cox, Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's
Electoral Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 69-98.
Richard F. Bensel and M. Elizabeth Sanders, "The Effect of Electoral Rules on Voting Behavior: The Electoral College and Shift Voting," Public Choice 34 (1979), pp. 69-85.
Tim
Anderson, “Winners and Losers in the Electoral College: A Look at Three Elections.” Starred paper, NIU Department of Political
Science.
OCTOBER
8
Majoritarian
Systems
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 49-67.
Matthew
Soberg Shugart and John M. Carey, Presidents
and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
pp. 206-225.
Cox,
Making Votes Count, pp. 123-138.
Gregory
D. Schmidt, "Fujimori's 1990 Upset Victory in
Ben Reilly, "The Alternative Vote and Ethnic Accommodation: New Evidence from
Bernard Grofman and Scott
L. Feld, “If You Like the Alternative Vote (a.k.a. the Instant Runoff), then
You Ought to Know about the Coombs Rule,” Electoral
Studies 23-4 (2004), pp. 641-659.
OCTOBER
15
List
Systems of Proportional Representation
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 68-96, 153-161, 168-174, 192-207.
Taagepera
and Shugart, Seats and Votes, pp.
67-76, 126-137.
Barry
Ames, "Electoral Strategy Under Open-List Proportional
Representation," American Journal
of Political Science 39-2 (May 1995),
pp. 406-33.
The
STV System of Proportional Representation
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 121-152.
OCTOBER
22
Mixed
Electoral Systems
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 97-120.
Matthew
Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems:
The Best of Both Worlds? (
Renske Dorenspleet,
“Electoral Systems and Democratic Quality:
Do Mixed Systems Combine the Best or the Worst of Both Worlds? An
Explorative Quantitative Cross-National Study,” Acta Politica 40-1 (2005), pp. 28-49.
Misa
Nishikawa and Erik S. Heron, “Mixed Electoral Rules’ Impact on Party Systems,” Electoral Studies 23-4 (2004), pp.
753-768.
Assignment
of Country Case Reviews
OCTOBER
29
Exam
NOVEMBER
5
Electoral
Engineering and Democratization
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 75-191.
Andrew
Reynolds, Ben Reilly, and Andrew Ellis, Electoral
System Design: The New International IDEA
Handbook (
Rein Taagepera, “How
Electoral Systems Matter for Democratization,” Democratization 5-3 (Autumn 1998), pp. 68-91.
Carles
Boix, “Setting the Rules of the Game:
The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93-3
(September 1999), pp. 609-624.
Takayuki Sakamoto, "Explaining Electoral Reform:
Benjamin
Reilly, “Electoral Systems for Divided Societies,” Journal of Democracy 13-2
(April
2002), pp. 156-170.
Dwight Y. King, Half-Hearted Reform:
Electoral Institutions and the Struggle for Democracy in
NOVEMBER
9
Country
Case Reviews due by e-mail (5 p.m.)
NOVEMBER
12
Country
Case Reviews
Reading
TBA; depends on students’ selection of cases (see point 4 above)
NOVEMBER
19
Country
Case Reviews (continued)
Electoral
Systems and the Representation of Women
Farrell, Electoral Systems, pp. 165-168.
Richard E. Matland,
“Enhancing Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Recruitment and
Electoral Systems,” in Azza Karam and Julie Ballington, eds., Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers,
Revised edition, (
Mala
N. Htun and Mark P. Jones, “Engendering the Right to Participate in
Decision-Making: Electoral Quotas and Women’s Leadership in Latin America,” in
Nikki Craske and Maxine Molyneux, eds., Gender
and the Politics of Rights and Democracy in Latin America (
Gregory D. Schmidt, “The
Implementation of Gender Quotas in
Gregory D. Schmidt, “The
Election of Women in List PR Systems: Testing the Conventional Wisdom.” Manuscript.
NOVEMBER
25
Electoral
Profiles due by e-mail (5 p.m.)
NOVEMBER
26
Presentation
of Electoral Profiles
DECEMBER
3
Teaching
Evaluation
Presentation
of Electoral Profiles (continued)
Research
on Electoral Systems: Achievements and Challenges
Matthew Soberg Shugart,
“Comparative Electoral Systems Research:
The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead,” in Gallagher and
Mitchell , eds. The Politics of Electoral
Systems, pp. 25–55.
Instructions for
Electoral Profile
Your
profile will be based on background information and data on (a) five
consecutive elections to the same legislative chamber in any country with
competitive elections; or (b) single elections to comparable legislative
chambers in any two competitive countries of your choice. Whether you choose Option "A" or
"B," your data must include the total number of seats and valid votes
(or percentages thereof) won by each party in each election.
Background
information and data for many counties can be found in some of the volumes
placed on print reserves and at various web sites, such as the Lijphart
Elections Archive at the
Although
you may organize your profile in any way that you choose, please make sure that
it includes the following:
1.
Description of the electoral rules for major offices (assembly, both chambers
if bicameral; head of government/state if directly elected) during the period
of the elections that you analyze (i.e.
five
consecutive elections in the same country under Option "A" or single
elections in different countries under Option "B"). You should discuss the district magnitude(s)
and allocation rules used for each type of election, including PR formulas,
adjustment seats, and thresholds, if relevant.
If district magnitude varies or is affected by adjustment seats or
thresholds, try to estimate the effective magnitude. Feel free to discuss other features that you
feel are important, such as ballot structure, turnout, malapportionment, any
allegations of fraud, etc.
2.
The advantage ratios for each party in each election. (In this and all subsequent computations,
please consider "Others" as a party.)
If
you choose Option "A," please graph these advantage ratios and the
respective percentages of the vote, following the format in Chapter 7 of
Taagepera and Shugart (T&S). Please
also list the
coordinates
used in the graph. Do your data points
appear to approximate one of the proportionality profiles in Chapter 7? If so, which one?
3.
The effective number of parties in each election, based on both vote and seat
shares. Under Option "A,"
contrast the indicators from the political system that you examine with other
political
systems. Under Option "B," contrast the
indicators from the two different political systems. See Chapter 8 of T&S.
4.
A brief discussion of the major cleavages and/or issue dimensions in the
electoral system and the respective positions of the major parties (Option
"A" only).
5.
The deviation from proportionality in each election. Under Option "A" contrast your
findings with other political systems. Under
Option "B" compare the indicators from the two systems. See
Chapter
10 of T&S.
6.
General Conclusions. Interpret the
patterns that you have identified.
Do(es) the electoral system(s) produce the sorts of results that we
would expect? Do other factors have an impact? Can
you
explain any differences over time (Option "A") or between systems
(Option "B")? Feel free to
identify and discuss any other significant issues in the system(s) that you
analyze, including
any
evidence of strategic behavior (see Cox).
Please
include complete citations of all sources used.
Please also append the raw data used to compute 2, 3, and 5 above.
Please
Note: In grading, I will take into account the difficulty of the case(s) and
the extent to which it (they) is (are) discussed in the assigned readings. In other words, ceteris paribus, a good profile
of a "difficult" case not treated in the assigned readings would
merit a somewhat higher grade than a good profile of an "easy" case
or one that is discussed extensively in the reading. However,
it
is possible to earn an "A" with a first-rate profile of any political
system.
Items on Print Reserve
Gary
W. Cox, Making Votes Count: Strategic
Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
JF1001
.C691997 (1
day)
Michael Gallagher and Paul
Mitchell , eds. The Politics of Electoral
Systems (
Thomas T. Mackie and Richard Rose, The International Almanac of Electoral
Studies, 3rd edition (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1991). JF1001
M17 1991 2 hour building use
Tom Mackie and Richard Rose, A Decade of Election Results: Updating the
International Almanac (Glasgow:
Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, 1997) Personal Copy Delivered. 2 hour building use
Dieter Nohlen, Elections
in the Americas: A Data Handbook (
Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann,
eds., Elections in Asia and the Pacific:
A Data Handbook, 2 vols. (
Dieter Nohlen, Michael Krennerich, and Bernard
Thibaut, eds., Elections in
2 hour building use
Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg,
eds. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The
Best of Both Worlds? (
Rein Taagepera and Matthew Soberg Shugart, Seats and Votes: The Effects and
Determinants of Electoral Systems
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). JF1001
.T331989 (1
day)