Download
political paradoxes may 15 2008 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008

Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008

424 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Political Paradoxes, May 15, 2008

  2. Today: • Evaluations • Elections in Africa note • Brief summary for last time • Freakonomics chapter • Democracy: Romania vs. Russia • Discussion: polisci discipline

  3. PR formulas • Two types of proportional electoral formulas: • Largest remainders (e.g., Hamilton) – non-monotonic • Highest averages (e.g., Jefferson; also known as d’Hondt in Europe) - monotonic

  4. PR in Romania • In Romania, until 2004, PR for the Senate & Chamber of Deputies was a two-step process (see electoral law, Article 91, paragraphs 2-4/pp. 55-56, available at http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2004/400/20/0/leg_pl420_04.pdf )

  5. “Giurgiu Paradox” • The 1996 results for the Senate (Giurgiu): PDSR 46,810 CDR 39,672 (35.37%) USD (PD + PSD) 16,680 PRM 6,833 PUNR 1,894 UDMR 269 (0.23%) (see http://www.kappa.ro/guv/bec/j-sen.html)

  6. Who got the two Senate seats? • Giurgiu has two Senate seats • One Senate seat went to PDSR (the party received the largest number of votes in Giurgiu) • The second Senate seat went to UDMR (269 votes, or about 147 times less than the Democratic Convention); see • http://www.kappa.ro/guv/bec/p-sen.html

  7. Alabama Paradox: • What is AP? When it did occur? Why? • What is monotonicity? • Two types of formulas (monotonic vs. non-monotonic) • Alabama Paradox, population paradox, new states paradox • Fix(es) to AP? How to prevent it?

  8. Electoral Engineering in Chile • What were the bad news for the incumbents? • What were the good news? • What is the best electoral system in those circumstances? Why? • Did gerrymandering play a role in Chile? • Did the system work as intended? • Is it fair to call Chile a “limited democracy”?

  9. Gerrymandering • What is gerrymandering? Where does the name come from? • What types of electoral systems are most conducive to gerrymandering? • Purpose? (three kinds) • Techniques? (types)

  10. Simple example • A state (region, district, county, judet…) is entitled to three seats • Two parties (Dems & Reps) • We have nine neighborhoods, four with Democratic majorities, five with Republican majorities:

  11. Geographic distribution:

  12. Column constituencies: 1D, 2R

  13. Row constituencies: 2D, 1R

  14. Limited Vote in Britain • Why was the Limited Vote introduced? • What were the two main goals of electoral reform? • Describe how Limited Vote works • What were the actual results? • Were the initial goals too optimistic? Why (or why not)?

  15. Did Limited Vote achieve its goals? (i) Lessening the power of parties? • Not really; on the contrary, it led to the development of the Birmingham caucus (ii) Protecting minorities? • Did not happen in Birmingham; in Leeds, it led to a “tyranny of minority” instead • Aren’t the two goals mutually exclusive?

  16. Where Have All the Criminals Gone? • Crime went up in the US for decades • Then it started to decline • Why?  Not the strong economy  Not the increased use of capital punishment: → “life on death row safer than on the streets” → not much effect, even if there is one (!?)  Notinnovative policing

  17.  Nottougher gun laws • Not the aging of the population Did have some effect: • Increased reliance on prisons • Increased number of police • Changes in crack and other drug markets However, this is not the whole story Also Roe vs. Wade: changes in abortion policies/legislation How does Levitt go about proving this claim?

  18. “X” → Democracy • (Economic) development • Predominant religion • Natural resources • Political culture • Mode of transition • Institutional design

  19. Note: “democracy” • Respondents asked to rate the importance of democracy for them, on a scale from 1 (very important) to 10 (not important at all). • Thus, the lower the score, the more important democracy is for the respondent

  20. Note: “Communism” • Respondents were asked their opinions about Communism (evaluate the regime). Available choices: (1)  Communism is a bad idea (2)  Communism was a good idea, but it was badly implemented (in Ro.) (3)  Communism is good, and it was implemented well (in Ro.)

  21. Wealth & Communism:

  22. Education → Democracy

  23. Education & Communism

  24. Soros Barometer, November 2007 • Questions: • Death penalty support (% support - % oppose) • Better to have two parties or more (% agree - % wanting one party or no parties) • Communism: % who thinks Communism was a bad political system

  25. Policy positions of presidential electorates

  26. Policy positions of party electorates

  27. PNG vs. Becali electorates

  28. “Development” & democracy in Ro • Positive relation between wealth and education, on the one hand, and support for democracy, on the other • Wealth → democracy • Education → democracy

  29. Modernization theory Economic development Social development Values (pro-democratic) Democracy

  30. Religion & democracy • Protestantism → democracy • Islam → authoritarianism • Orthodoxy? Natural resources: • The “resource curse”

  31. Ethnic diversity: Inimical to democracy (?) • Mode of transition: Violent vs. negotiated • Romania vs. Russia?

  32. Romania vs. Russia • Development • Ethnic divisions • Religion • Communist legacy • Political culture • Mode of transition