exam notes 2-7-exam - 20:56 I. Classescancelledon24:nonotes...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
20:56 I. Classes cancelled on 2-4: no notes II. Social Cleavage Theory Alignment—the extent to which the party system reflects the relevant group  differences in society. 25% alignment means that we can explain 25% of the  vote in relation to the results of a vote. o Examples: Low alignment: Japan, roughly 8%—these parties show little group difference, this  depicts the fact that there are little to no group differences. USA, 13%--racial, ethinic, ertc differnces can explain roughly 13%  of the vote. Possibly Mexico High: Belgium, Netherlands,  northern European countries, roughly 60+% Classification o Dalton used alignment to classify countries. He studies 76 countries and  designed parameters for classifying the level of alignment: 57-Single claim/ mutually reinforcing cleavage These parties have a single claim-catholic party, regional parties,  etc. However, there are also mutually reinforcing parties contain  people that have similar characteristics so you can make the case  that it is a regional, religious, or income based party because that  are focused in one area, where there are a specific religious or  income based area. Out of that 57, 19 mutually reinforcing cleavages and out of that 19  you end of with 45 claims/ identities that are expressed.  Low High Low aggrogative responsive High factionalized representative 19-Heterogeneous These parties have different claims for support, including different  groups that come together to work together into a collective party.  The US parties are clear examples of this.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
20:56 Hand written notes. transcribe
Background image of page 2
American Party Systems continued 20:56 I. Timeline from last time:
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
American Party Systems continued 20:56 1800-183: 1 st  party system “ proto” party system 1824-1860: 2 nd  party system “Jacksonian” party system 1860-1896:3 rd  party system civil war party system 1896-1932: 4 th  party system of ‘96” 1932-1968: 5 th  party system; “new deal” party system 6 th  party system post new deal party system II. Framers: the framers specifically Hamilton and Madison wrote extensively that they did  not like political parties or “factions.” o Warned in Washington’s farewell address Almost immediately after he leaves debate begins and two specific ideals  become the focus of parties. Aldridge, who wrote “ why parties,” he argues  that it would not be possible for democracy to work without a party system. In  some way it is unimaginable that there would not be parties III. Electoral contest in the election of 1800: Federalist v. Jeffersonian Federalists: o Federalists think that the federal government should have the power to 
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 12

exam notes 2-7-exam - 20:56 I. Classescancelledon24:nonotes...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online