Political Power, State Structures, Regimes, and Elections

Posted on Apr 28, 2025 in Economic Sciences

Elements of Political Power

Political power is composed of three elements: strength, influence, and authority.

Strength (Coercion)

We speak about strength or coercion when there is a capacity to deny or limit access to specific goods or opportunities to others. This is what happens when political institutions arrest, evict, imprison, or sanction somebody, or threaten to do so.

Influence

Influence refers to those cases in which political power resides in its capacity to convince people about the patterns of behaviour they should adopt or leave in every circumstance.

Authority

Authority is manifested when the indications of an individual or group are followed by others because s/he owns a credit or trust which, being acknowledged, makes the use of force unnecessary. Authority is a form of power, but they are distinguished from one another as contrasting means through which compliance or obedience is achieved.

Kinds of Authority (Max Weber)

The most influential attempt to categorize types of authority was undertaken by Max Weber. He constructed three ‘ideal types’, which he accepted were only conceptual models but which, he hoped, would help make sense of the highly complex nature of political rule.

Traditional Authority

Weber suggested that in traditional societies, authority is based upon respect for long-established customs and traditions. Traditional authority is regarded as legitimate because it has ‘always existed’ and was accepted by earlier generations.

Charismatic Authority

This form of authority is based entirely upon the power of an individual’s personality, his or her ‘charisma’.

Legal-Rational Authority

This was the most important kind of authority in Weber’s view, being the dominant mode of organization within modern industrial societies. Legal-rational authority was characteristic of the large-scale, bureaucratic organizations that had come to dominate modern society.

Legitimacy and Authority

The terms legitimacy and authority can sometimes be used synonymously; however, people are said to have authority, whereas it is political systems that are described as legitimate. Legitimacy is the quality that transforms naked power into rightful authority.

Perspectives on Legitimacy

• Weber: A belief in the ‘right to rule’, a belief in legitimacy; providing its peoples are prepared to comply, a system of rule can be described as legitimate.
• Aristotle: Rule was legitimate only when it operated for the benefit of the whole society rather than in the selfish interests of the rulers.
• Rousseau: Government was legitimate if it was based upon the ‘general will’.

David Beetham: Conditions for Legitimacy

In The Legitimation of Power, David Beetham argued that power can be said to be legitimate only if three conditions are fulfilled:

1. Power must be exercised according to established rules, whether embodied in formal legal codes or informal conventions.
2. These rules must be justified in terms of the shared beliefs of the government and the governed.
3. Legitimacy must be demonstrated by the expression of consent on the part of the governed.

Rational Legitimacy

Rational legitimacy is inserted in stable and formal rules. Currently, laws and constitutions contain these norms. A constitution is just a supreme norm from where all other norms are derived. The legitimacy of power in liberal regimes has been supported – since the late 18th century – by the existence of a constitution, through which a political community establishes fundamental rules for living together.

Positivism

Positivism I: Axioms and Premises

• Axioms: Correspondence theory of truth, methodological unity of science, value-free scientific knowledge.
• Premises: Division of Subject and Object, Naturalism – deduction of all phenomena from natural facts, Division of statements of facts and statements of values.

Positivism II: Consequences

• Postulated existence of a “real“ world (Object) independent from the theory-loaded grasp of the scientist (Subject).
• Identification of facts in an intersubjectively valid observation language independent from theories.
• Methodological exclusion of idiosyncratic characteristics and/or individual (subject) identities assures objective knowledge of an intersubjectively transferable character.

Positivism III: Further Consequences

1. Concept of Reason: Predicated on the purposeful rationality/rationality of purpose of instrumental action aiding the actor to technically master her/his environment.
2. Rationalisation: Of societal (inter-)action by its predication on planned/plannable means-end-relationships, technical (or engineering) knowledge, depersonalisation of relationships of power and dominance, and extension of control over natural and social objects (“rationalisation of the world we live in”).

Theoretical Developments Post-Positivism

Since the late 1980s, there has been a rejection of positivism, mainly due to the insight that its stringent methodological criteria do not fit the Social Sciences. The current theoretical situation involves three main positions:

1. Rationalist theories: Essentially the latest versions of realist and liberal theories.
2. Alternative theories: Post-positivist approaches.
3. Social constructivist theories: Attempting to bridge the gap.

The Rise of Constructivism

Constructivism’s Emergence

The end of the Cold War created intellectual space for scholars to challenge existing theories of international politics and implied that the prognostic value of positivism was questionable. Constructivists draw on established sociological theory to demonstrate how social science could help International Relations (I.R.) scholars understand the role of ideas, the importance of social interaction between states, and definitions of identity and norms in world politics.

Constructivism’s Contributions

Constructivists demonstrated how attention to norms and states’ identities could help uncover important issues neglected by other paradigms, such as:

• The social construction of reality.
• The relationship between actors and structures.
• The content and importance of intersubjective ideas and shared beliefs that define international relations.

Core Concepts of Constructivism

Constructivism I: Focus and Dynamics

Constructivists:

• Are concerned with human consciousness.
• Treat ideas as structural factors.
• Consider the dynamic relationship between ideas and material forces as a consequence of actors’ interpretation of their material reality.
• Are interested in how agents produce structures and how structures produce agents.

Knowledge shapes how actors interpret and construct their social reality.

Constructivism II: Structures, Facts, and Rules

• Normative structures shape the identity and interests of actors such as states.
• Social facts (e.g., sovereignty, human rights) exist because of human agreement, while brute facts (e.g., mountains) are independent of such agreements.
• Social rules can be regulative (regulating existing activities) or constitutive (making possible and defining those activities).

Constructivism III: Questioning and Power

• Social construction questions what is taken for granted, asks about the origins of accepted facts, and considers alternative pathways.
• Power is understood not only as Actor A getting Actor B to do something B would not otherwise do, but also as the production of identities and interests that limit actors’ ability to control their fate.

The Political System Model

The structure of politics is conceived as a system: the core of the political system receives several messages from its social environment as news, demands, reivindications, or supports from different actors.

The environment describes the set of social, economic, and cultural interactions which take place in society.

The connection between this environment and the core of the political system is conducted through the expression of a set of demands and supports known as inputs.

The set of messages (inputs) which the social environment generates is processed by the system until it produces a response to the demands and supports raised. This reaction (or output) can consist of decisions or policies.

In some cases, it is useful to distinguish the response from the system (output) from the effect which this response actually produces on reality, the outcome.

The feedback from the system is obtained as the result of the impact that the system´s reaction has on the environment.

Orientations Towards Political Objects

• Cognitive orientations: What a citizen knows, or believes they know, regarding a political object (a situation, institution, individual, symbol, etc.).
• Affective orientations: Rooted in emotional reactions to political objects, making citizens feel affection, rejection, or indifference towards a specific idea, symbol, or person.
• Value orientations: Predispose individuals prior to evaluating a specific object: “it is good or wrong”, “approve or disapprove“.
• Intentional orientations: Form the basis of a tendency to act in one direction or another, participating or inhibiting any intervention in politics.

Comparative Politics Approaches

The way researchers study differences and similarities among political systems involves:

1. Context Description: Describing phenomena and developments in a specific country or group of countries different from the researcher’s origin. This helps escape an ethnocentric view. Classification is part of this approach.
2. Explanation of Variation: Aiming not only to know global diversity but also to “explain” this “variation”. After describing, classifying, and evaluating political phenomena, comparativists try to discover the factors shaping political processes and structures.

The State-Nation

A state-nation is a specific form of sovereign state (a political entity on a territory) that is guided by a nation (a cultural entity) and derives its legitimacy from successfully serving all its citizens.

Constitutive Elements of the State

1. Human Community: Presence of a human community (based on blood link, lineage, or personal attachment). Members of a State have rights and are subject to obligations, distinguishing citizens from non-citizens.
2. Sovereignty: The capacity to make decisions compulsory for the whole population within the State’s borders. Sovereignty is the quality enabling a political entity with original power, conferring an undisputed right to use coercion if necessary.
   • Internally: A State is sovereign because it can impose its authority over any other source (monopoly of violence).
   • Externally: The sovereign state does not admit the domain of any outside authority.
3. Territorial Domain: Affects surface and subsoil, inner waters, the sea, and marine platforms. It also comprises the airspace within its territorial framework. Only international waters and stratospheric space belong to no State.

Political Regimes

Authoritarian Regime

We speak of Authoritarian Regimes when the state is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. It will generally ignore an individual’s actions unless perceived as a direct challenge to the state. It’s a political regime where a small group of individuals exercises power over the state without being constitutionally responsible to the public. Authoritarian Regimes are built upon the restriction of individual freedom. They are rarely driven by ideology but rather by the whims of those in power. (Examples: Myanmar, Cuba)

Totalitarian Regime

A Totalitarian Regime exists when the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. It’s a highly centralized regime possessing some form of strong ideology that seeks to transform and absorb aspects of the state, society, and the economy. It seeks to use power to transform the total fabric of a nation, distinguishing it from authoritarianism. Totalitarianism shatters human will and destroys the ability of individuals to create or aspire to freedom. (Examples: USSR under Stalin, Nazi Germany, Romania under Ceauşescu).

Post-Totalitarian Regime

After the fall of totalitarianism, a government with absent or weak institutions and lacking secondary associations. (Examples: Russia, Ukraine, and Romania in the 1990s)

Sultanistic Regime

In a Sultanistic Regime, all individuals, groups, and institutions are permanently subject to the unpredictable and despotic intervention of the sultan, and thus all pluralism is precarious. (Examples: Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Saddam Hussein)

Monarchy Regime

A Monarchy Regime rests on the claim that one person alone is fit to rule a country, with no clear regime or roles to constrain that person’s rule. Often, this person depends on a collection of supporters within the state who gain direct benefits in return for enforcing the ruler’s will. This is called patrimonialism.

Military Regimes

Military Regimes are increasingly common in states struggling with legitimacy and stability and in those where there is a high level of public unrest or violence. In this case, the military sees itself as the only organized force able to ensure stability. Often, military rulers emerge through a coup, where the military takes over the government by force.

One-Party Regime

A One-Party Regime occurs when a single political party monopolizes politics, with other parties banned or excluded from power. The party usually consists of only a small minority of the population and combines itself with larger corporatist regimes of public control. These can otherwise be classified as oligarchies. Members of the party are often granted privileges denied to the public at large. These parties rule because a large group of individuals in society benefit from the regime and are therefore willing to defend it. Often associated with communism and fascism.

Theocracies Regime

Theocracies are defined as “rule by God.” The faith of the people and its leaders are the foundation for these kinds of political regimes.

Failed State

A Failed State is a state whose government is considered to have failed at some basic responsibilities, for example, keeping the legal system working correctly and an inability to provide reasonable public services (electricity, water, education, hospitals). In other words, the state has lost control of its territory or the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. It involves the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions; it’s the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, resulting in paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted, and experienced officials are killed or flee the country. (Examples: Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad)

Democratic Regime

A Democratic Regime is a system or regime type in which ultimate political authority is vested with the citizenry. The origins of democratic states are in Europe (and North America). Characteristics and criteria include:

• Democracies guarantee basic individual freedoms and rights.
• They rely on the rule of law.
• Democratic governments are chosen through regular, free, and fair elections with different electoral systems (e.g., single-member district & first-past-the-post system or proportional representation system).
• Two basic requirements for a functional democracy: participation and contestation.

Waves of Democratization

A Wave of Democratization refers to a group of transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period and significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period.

• First Wave: 1828-1926
• Second Wave: 1943-1964
• Third Wave: 1970-1990

Explanations for Democratization

• High overall level of economic wealth
• Relatively equal distribution of income and/or wealth
• A market economy
• Economic development and social modernization
• A strong bourgeoisie (capitalist class)
• A strong middle class
• High levels of literacy and education
• Social pluralism
• Development of political contestation
• Democratic authority structures within social groups
• Low levels of civil violence
• Low levels of political polarization and extremism
• Political leaders committed to democracy

Forms of State

Unitary State

In the Unitary State (e.g., France), the basic political power is located in one unique centre, from where it is projected to the whole territory. It can delegate competencies and distribute resources to sub-state entities (municipalities, provinces, regions, etc.). Nevertheless, these competencies can be suspended through a unilateral decision. These types of states are characterized by a vertical hierarchy between institutions.

Federal State

In Federal States, however, political power is shared with institutions controlling different territorial spheres. There is, thus, a political will to share power between different levels of government. The principle here is not vertical hierarchy but horizontal coordination among institutions from different territorial spheres. Federations or Federal States are the most frequent case of composed States and group territorial political entities which receive different names. There is no single federal model, but taking into account the USA or Switzerland, some characteristics are:

• A distribution of competencies perfectly specified for the federation (defense, currency, foreign policy), leaving the rest for the States or cantons. The competencies of the Federation are few and well established.
• The existence of federal institutions (like a parliament, executive, courts of justice, etc.) in whose composition the States or cantons intervene.
• The existence of a single constitution in every State or unit where all government institutions are regulated.
• The existence of a federal supreme Court of Justice with attributions to decide on conflicts affecting conflicts between States or between States and the federation.

Confederations

Confederations (e.g., the EU conceptually, though it has unique features) are not a type of State but consist of groups of States which existed previously and decide to act in a coordinated way on a more or less wide range of political aspects (foreign affairs, defense, currency, customs, etc.). Any collective decision must have the agreement of other member states of the confederation, which is equivalent to the right to veto. Without unanimity, decisions do not progress. The maximum organ of government – a council or assembly – gathers representatives from every state, who act as ambassadors. On the other hand, the confederation lacks the mechanism to enforce compliance with a decision which has already been taken. This has made confederations historically unstable; they have often decomposed or moved towards a higher degree of integration (federal model).

Separation of Powers and Forms of Government

The classical approach involves the separation of powers into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. From this approach, it is possible to build a classical typology providing four forms of government. The main criterion for classification is the relationship existing between the executive and parliament in each case.

Directory or Assembly Model

The Assembly intervenes in an exclusive and decisive way in the rise of a collegiate executive – a directory – because it chooses individually every member for a specific period. At the same time, the parliament sets the programmatic lines of action for the executive. (A practically unique example: Switzerland).

Parliamentary Model

The parliament intervenes exclusively in the rise of a Government, gives its confidence through the act of investiture, supervises its activity, and can end a mandate with a vote of censure. As a counterfact, the executive can dissolve the parliament and call for elections. The Head of State (king or president of the republic) plays a ceremonial role. (Examples: Germany, UK, Spain).

Semi-presidential Model

The Parliament plays a partial role, but not exclusively, in the rise of a Government, since the Head of State also intervenes in the nomination and cessation. The Head of State (the President of the Republic) is not merely a representative figure, since s/he is elected by universal suffrage, participates in some attributions of the executive, and shares with the Government the faculty of dissolving the Parliament. The Parliament controls the activity of the Government and can, similarly, end its mandate through a vote of censure. (Example: France).

Parliamentary vs. Presidential Systems (Arend Lijphart)

Arend Lijphart highlights three main differences between parliamentary and presidential systems:

1. Executive Responsibility:
   • Parliamentary: The head of Government (Prime Minister and cabinet) are responsible to the Parliament. The executive depends on parliamentary confidence and can be dismissed by it (vote of censure/confidence).
   • Presidential: The head of Government (President) is chosen through popular vote (directly or indirectly) for a fixed term set by the constitution. S/he cannot be dismissed by a parliamentary vote. The Parliament does not nominate him/her, so it is not responsible for his/her resignation.
2. Executive Selection and Separation:
   • Presidential: The president is chosen by the people through elections (direct or indirect). Powers are effectively separated. Executive members are subordinates of the President, acting more as counselors. The President is the ultimate decision-maker and subject of responsibility. Executive members cannot be members of Parliament.
   • Parliamentary: The head of Government (Prime Minister) is chosen by a parliamentary majority. Executives are collegiate (cabinet/council of ministers). The Prime Minister and cabinet members are often elected members of Parliament.
3. Power to Dissolve Parliament & Executive Structure:
   • Presidential: The President cannot dissolve Parliament and call early elections (just as s/he cannot be dismissed by Parliament). The executive is singular: the President is both Head of State and Head of Government.
   • Parliamentary: Prime Ministers usually have the prerogative to dissolve Parliament and call elections (exceptions exist). The executive power is dual (Head of State and Head of Government). The Head of State can be a King (Parliamentary Monarchy) or a President (Parliamentary Republic).

Components of the Executive

Contemporary political systems have an executive integrated by more than one institution. Typically, they are composed of three elements: the Government, the Head of State, and the Public Administrations which serve as supporting instruments. Each element plays different roles and maintains relations with other institutions, varying across political systems. Their goal is to impulse their initiatives for regulation.

In dual executives (typical in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, mainly in Europe and former colonies), the executive comprises two main bodies: the Government proper (ministers led by a Prime Minister/Chancellor) and the Head of State (hereditary King or elected President).

In simple executives (typical in most presidential systems like the US, common in Latin America, Africa, Asia), the executive is constituted by a single body, the Presidency, accumulating effective, symbolic, and ceremonial attributes.

The Government

• It is the Government’s prerogative to effectively impulse and coordinate major political decisions and lead the services of the general Administration.
• The Government is a collegiate body, integrated by ministers, led by a president (Prime Minister or Chancellor) whose position has been progressively reinforced.
• The president often proposes the nomination and dismissal of government members, leads main policies, and may have the faculty to dissolve the Assembly and call new Parliamentary elections.

The Head of State

• Generally plays a ceremonial role, distant from daily political disputes, symbolizing the political community.
• In monarchies, the position is held for life through dynasty succession. In republics, the president is chosen for a fixed mandate (election methods vary: by Parliament, delegate commission, etc.).
• Responsibilities include international representation, granting honors, formal proclamation of laws, nomination of some positions, etc.
• These decisions are typically not unilateral and need endorsement (countersignature) by the Prime Minister or a relevant minister.

Simple Executives (Presidency)

• The President is elected by direct universal suffrage.
• The President nominates secretaries or ministers freely, but they do not form a collegiate body like a Council of Ministers. The relationship is bilateral (President-Secretary) based on delegation.
• The President cannot dissolve Parliament but can veto laws Parliament approves.

Functions of the Executive

Currently, we can attribute five major functions to Executives:

1. Main political initiative: decisive impulse in elaborating and implementing public policies.
2. Direction, coordination, and supervision of all services and agencies within the Public Administration.
3. Symbolic representation of the continuity of a political community.
4. Management of crises and immediate decisions in response to challenges.
5. Exercise of social leadership, setting the agenda or selecting matters of general interest.

The Public Administrations

The most ordinary and frequent relation between citizens and the Government is developed through the Public Administration. They grant permissions and authorizations, enforce the law, provide funding, deliver healthcare and educational services, etc.

Public Administration is understood as the organization integrated by professional staff using public material and economic means to materialize executive decisions. Public administrations constitute both an instrument of the executive (needed to implement decisions) and the direct intervention mechanism in economic, social, cultural reality, etc.

Political Actors

Party System

A party system is the system of interactions resulting from inter-party competition. It relates to how parties interact with each other and how each party functions relative to others (Sartori). It’s the aggregate of all parties, their relations among themselves, and their relations with the government (state). It has two components:

• Static: Existence of parties.
• Dynamic: Relations among parties and between parties and the state.

Electoral Alignment Changes

Realignment

New issues arise in post-industrial societies; emergence of new cleavages associated with the new middle class, new values (stress on post-material values), green parties, and the new left. Realignment can also mean a significant shift in party fortunes within both left and right.

Dealignment

Three types of evidence:

1. Decline in identification with parties and willingness to vote for them.
2. Emergence of new parties and rise of voter support for them.
3. General increase in electoral volatility.

Four Historical Cleavages (Lipset & Rokkan)

• Centre – Periphery: Division between elites in urban areas and those in outlying areas. (e.g., Liberals vs. regional parties)
• State – Church: Division between religious and secular voters. (e.g., Liberals vs. Christian Democrats)
• Owner – Worker: A class cleavage, forming parties of the left and right (rich vs. poor). (e.g., Liberals vs. Social Democrats)
• Land – Industry: Conflict over state control of tariffs versus freedom for industrial enterprise. (e.g., Agrarian parties vs. Liberals)

Sartori’s Classification of Party Systems

Criteria:

• Simple counting rule: Only relevant parties are counted. A party is relevant if it has:
  • Coalition potential
  • Blackmail potential (ability to affect tactics of party competition)
• Number of parties (format) combined with ideological distance (mechanism):
  • Centripetal competition (low polarization)
  • Centrifugal competition (high polarization)

Systems Without Competition

• One-party system: Only one party allowed; totalitarian states (e.g., USSR, Nazi Germany).
• Hegemonic party system: Satellite parties allowed but can never gain power; former socialist countries of Eastern bloc (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Poland, German Democratic Republic).

Competitive Systems

1. Predominant party system: One party wins elections persistently (minimum three consecutive times); free and fair elections, but competitors unable to win. (Example: Social Democrats in Denmark, Sweden, Norway historically).
2. Two-party system (bipartism): Two main parties have a chance to win elections; alternation of these two parties in government; centripetal competition; low polarization. (Example: UK, USA, Australia, Commonwealth countries).
3. Moderate multipartism: 3–5 parties (maximally 6); low polarization; centripetal competition; bipolar configuration; alternation of coalitions; missing anti-system parties. (Example: Germany, New Zealand, Austria).
4. Polarized multipartism: 5/6–8 parties; anti-system parties present; bilateral opposition; coalition government placed between two opposition poles; high polarization; centrifugal competition; unstable; frequent crises. (Example: Italy (First Republic), France (Fourth Republic)).

Atomized Multipartism

Extremely high fragmentation; centrifugal competition; high polarization; main rule is parties wanting to occupy posts in power; symptom of crisis or transition, with uncertain outcomes.

Interest Groups

Types of Interest Groups

• Economic Interest Groups:
  1. Business: Large corporations, including multinationals.
  2. Trade and Other Associations: Businesses with similar interests join together (diverse as products/services).
  3. Labour: Workers’ associations with shared interests (professional standards, wages, working conditions). (Examples: Farm Bureau Federation, United Farm Workers Association, AFL-CIO).
• Government & Government Employee Interest Groups:
  1. Governments themselves are important interest groups.
  2. Government employees form a large, well-organized group.
  3. Public employees are increasingly important to organized labour (fastest-growing unions).
• Other Interest Groups:
  1. Nationality groups
  2. Religious organizations
  3. Environmental groups

Lobbyists

• Who are Lobbyists? A person or persons employed by and acting for an organized interest group or corporation to try to influence policy decisions and positions in the executive and legislative branches.
• What do Lobbyists Do? Engage in activities aimed at influencing public officials, especially legislators and the policies they enact. Lobbyists primarily provide information and access, and sometimes campaign funding.

Social Movements

Social Movements are large bodies of people interested in a common issue, idea, or concern of continuing significance, willing to take action to support or oppose it. Interest groups sometimes begin as movements. Social movements represent groups that have felt unrepresented by government.

Political Culture

Political Culture refers to a particular distribution of cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientations toward a political system or political object.

Civic Culture (Almond & Verba)

The Civic Culture is pluralistic and “based on communication and persuasion, a culture of consensus and diversity, a culture that permits change but moderates it” (Almond and Verba 1963, p. 8). It’s considered a mix of participant, subject, and parochial cultures.

Three Ideal Types of Political Culture

1. Parochial Political Culture:
   • No clear differentiation of specific political roles and expectations; minimal political specialization.
   • Citizens have little knowledge or opinion of government structure, roles, elite, policy making.
   • Tends to be unaware or dimly aware of the political system.
   • Typical of traditional societies (e.g., tribal, feudal).
   • Roles are diffuse and changing (e.g., head of family/tribe).
2. Subject Political Culture:
   • Institutional and role differentiation exists, but citizens have largely passive relations, responding to government output.
   • Cognitively oriented primarily to the output side (executive, bureaucracy, judiciary).
   • Typical of autocratic systems.
   • Individual is aware of specialized governmental authority but is a subject, not a participant.
3. Participant Political Culture:
   • Relationships between specialized institutions and citizen opinion/activity are interactive.
   • Citizens have knowledge and opinions, contributing actively to the system.
   • Aware of and informed about both governmental and political aspects (inputs and outputs).
   • Typical of liberal democracies.
   • Individuals see themselves as participants and recognize benefits as outputs.

Communication and Media

Communication

Communication is the transmission of meaning through the use of symbols (language, signs, pictures, colour, sound, etc.) to make others aware.

Media Types

• Interpersonal media: Transmit messages by direct personal contact (e.g., conversations, letters).
• Mass media: ‘Broadcast’ messages to large numbers of receivers with no face-to-face contact (e.g., TV, radio, newspapers, internet).

Public Opinion

Public Opinion consists of those opinions held by private persons which governments find it prudent to heed. It’s the ‘sum’ of all private opinions taken into account in decision-making, not encompassing the whole society but those who express concern about issues.

Electoral Systems

An electoral system is the set of rules governing the conversion of votes into seats. Key dimensions include:

• District Magnitude (M): The number of candidates elected per district.
• Intra-party Choice: How much choice voters have among candidates of the same party.
  • Single-member districts: Usually no intra-party choice on the ballot.
  • Proportional Representation (PR) systems:
    • Closed lists: Party determines candidate order.
    • Preferential lists (Open/Semi-open): Voters can express preferences for candidates.
• Thresholds: Minimum support required (e.g., percentage of vote) for a party to win representation, especially in large or nationwide districts. Aims to prevent fragmentation and facilitate stable government.

Majoritarian Systems

Single-Member Plurality (SMP) / First Past the Post (FPTP)

• One member elected per district.
• The candidate with the most votes (a plurality, not necessarily a majority) wins.
• Voters select one candidate.
• Used in: USA, UK, India, Canada, etc.

Alternative Vote (AV) / Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

• Preferential/ordinal ballot: voters rank candidates.
• If no candidate has a majority of first preferences, the last-place candidate is eliminated.
• Ballots for the eliminated candidate are redistributed based on the next preference marked.
• Process repeats until one candidate achieves a majority.
• Used in: Australia (House of Representatives).

Two-Round System (TRS) / Majority-Plurality

• First round similar to SMP.
• If no candidate wins a majority (usually 50%+1), a second round is held later.
• Second round typically involves the top two finishers (majority runoff) or all candidates above a certain threshold (plurality runoff).
• Used in: France (presidential and legislative elections).

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

Aim to translate vote shares into proportional seat shares. Used in multi-member districts.

List PR

Parties present lists of candidates. Seats are allocated based on party vote shares.

• Open List: Voters choose individual candidates within a party list; candidate popularity influences who is elected.
• Closed List: Voters vote for the party list as a whole. Candidates are elected in the order predetermined by the party.
• Semi-open List: Voters can influence candidate order to some extent, but list order still plays a significant role.

Methods to award seats (e.g., D’Hondt, Sainte-Laguë, Largest Remainder) aim for proportionality.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• Uses a preferential ballot in multi-member districts.
• Candidates reaching a quota (calculated based on votes and seats) are elected.
• Surplus votes (votes above the quota) from elected candidates are transferred to voters’ next preferences.
• If seats remain unfilled, the lowest-polling candidate is eliminated, and their votes are transferred.
• Process continues until all seats are filled.
• Used in: Ireland, Malta, Australia (Senate).

Mixed Systems

Combine elements of majoritarian and PR systems.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

• Voters typically cast two votes: one for a district candidate (majoritarian) and one for a party list (PR).
• District seats are filled first (usually by FPTP).
• PR list seats (compensatory/adjustment seats) are then allocated to parties to make the overall seat distribution proportional to the party list vote.
• Used in: Germany, New Zealand.

Parallel Systems / Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM)

• Also combines single-member districts and PR lists.
• However, the two tiers are separate; the PR seats do not compensate for disproportionality in the district results.
• Seat allocation in each tier is independent.
• Used in: Japan, Russia, South Korea.

System Characteristics Summarized

Plurality System (FPTP)

• Simple: Candidate/party with the most votes wins.
• Applied in single-member districts, largely candidate-centered.
• Found in UK and historically linked countries.
• Winner needs most votes, not necessarily a majority.

Majority System (TRS, AV)

• Aims for winner to have a majority.
• May require runoffs (TRS) if no majority in the first round.
• Alternative Voting (AV) uses ranked preferences to achieve majority without a second election day.

Proportional Representation (PR)

• Translates votes into proportional seats.
• Requires multi-member districts.
• Proportionality increases with district magnitude.
• Lists can be open or closed.
• STV offers more voter freedom across parties via ranking.

Advantages and Disadvantages of FPTP

Advantages

• Simplicity for voters and counting.
• Clear link between representative and geographic area.
• Tends to produce single-party governments, potentially stable.
• Provides clear choices for voters.
• Facilitates a strong opposition as an alternative government.
• Encourages broad-based political parties.
• May exclude extremist parties lacking geographically concentrated support.

Disadvantages

• Can exclude smaller parties and minorities from fair representation.
• May disadvantage female candidates (evidence suggests lower election rates than under PR).
• Can encourage parties based on clan, ethnicity, or region.
• Large number of ‘wasted votes’ (votes for losing candidates or surplus votes for winners).
• Can lead to disproportionate results (‘winning bonus’ for largest party).

Advantages and Disadvantages of PR

Advantages

• More accurate translation of votes into seats (‘fairer’ results).
• Avoids large numbers of wasted votes and the ‘winning bonus’.
• Encourages parties to clarify ideology/policy via lists.
• Facilitates representation for minority parties and diverse viewpoints.
• Encourages parties to campaign nationwide as every vote counts.
• Can lead to more stable, consensus-based policy-making (though potentially slower).
• Makes power-sharing visible in coalitions.

Disadvantages

• Often leads to coalition governments, which can be fragmented or unstable.
• Policy-making can be complex or compromised in coalitions.
• Can provide a platform for extremist parties (especially with low thresholds).
• Coalitions may lack common ground for strong policies.
• Can give disproportionate power to small ‘kingmaker’ parties in coalition bargaining.
• Accountability can be blurred in coalitions (harder to ‘throw a party out’).
• Some PR systems (like STV) can be complex for voters and administration.