100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 12 pages.
Exam #3 Pols 315Here we go! Involvement: Overall: CPSU and other Communist Parties were very highly involvedNo matter who compared to the US parties, we are LOW in involvement.U.K. Parties more involved.Update on US placements: material incentives are much less available, as the machines became less -- so did the incentives and didn't work effectively. BUT purposive incentives became more important now for US parties than in the past.●Note: Membership figures have dropped for many western European parties, indicating the likelihood of decreasing involvement there also. Governmental Status:1. Both parties scored above the mean for western competitive parties2. The gap between the two American Parties' scores was/ is much smaller than the gap between the two British Parties' scores, reflecting the different between presidential and parliamentary systems3. Where the gap between parties is smaller, it is less clear which party is controlling the government, and hence which party is responsible for policiesInstitutionalization:1. Competitive parties are more institutionalized than non-competitive parties on average,2. CPSU made clear that is was possible for non-competitive parties to institutionalize (and that being "institutionalized" does not mean "permanent")3. CONCLUSION: US parties stood (and stand) right at the top of the scale, even outranking the UK partiesSide note: the "party decline" of the 1970s caused some concern about the inevitability of the US parties continuing.Autonomy: The US Scores high when it comes to foreign relations, domestic parties, in regards to sources of members of society bc we have no formal membership, BUT low in regards to sources of leaders. -Republicans and Democrats get their leaders from law and business-Update: Parties in the EU countries, are MORE LIKELY to have important foreign relationship now due to the EU party groups. *Bottom line: though completely autonomous in some ways, less auto w regards to getting leaders and funds from just a few sectorsAggregation & Articulation:
The extent to which the party draws its supporters evenly from all significant social groups (where 5% of each group supports the party, no matter how big or small the groups is)Articulation: the extent to which party supporters are concentrated in specific social groupings (where 90% of the party's supporters are Catholics)General rule: the more potent dimensions are those were Aggregation is low and Articulation is high**The major US parties are generally high on aggregation and low on articulationThird Parties in US History1.Mainstream- not extreme ideologically1.Bolters- splitter parties-- they have split away from the 2 major parties (bolted from the party)2.Farm-Labor parties (had "hay-day" at an earlier part in time. Began as agricultural parties.