Читайте также:
|
Theories of Representation.
There is no single theory of representation and that means that each region or country should choose what model of representation to use. There is number of such models.
Trustee model. That model assumes, that, once elected, people should exercise their own judgment, no matter what the electorate wants. That, mostly elitist, point of view was supported by the prominent UK-politician Edward Burke – his main point was that high level of education (and the elected usually have one) makes people more responsible socially. That presumption was fiercely criticized by the democrats – because that fact is rather arguable and because the simple fact of independent judgment will undermine the underlying principles of democracy.
Delegate model. Delegate is nearly the same as the trustee – however, delegates are thought not to have the opportunity to act on their own – all the activities are closely bound to the interests of their constituents. The supporters of that model favor the use of referendums. However, that model seems to be rather ineffective – because, being restricted, politicians will have to act narrowly, unable to mobilize others or provide vision and inspiration. That will also lead to conflicts and mutual hatred between different interest groups inside the society.
Mandate model. The mandate model is closely connected to the ideas of party discipline, voting behavior. It provides something neutral between the above mentioned models. It assumes, that having won elections, party gets (receives) a popular mandate – that allows them to act rater independently from the public. However, their actions are restricted by the party discipline – that provides the guidelines for the coordinated behavior. The opponents of that model assume that the results may be actually influenced by the irrational factors – and no one knows what affects the voters’ behavior. All the way, it means that popular mandate may be given to the irresponsible groups.
Resemblance model. That model is based on the idea that government should be formed as a microcosm – resembling society structure. Ideally, that would mean the same proportional contents. However, that will mean that government has not only the strong sides of the society, but the weak ones as well. Secondly, such composition of government will demand the electorate to be classified on the grounds of gender, nationality, race, income, education and so on – that is completely unacceptable.
Electoral systems and voting behavior (theories of voting)
The debate around representation is closely connected to the electoral system choice. In large, there are 2 electoral systems – proportional and majoritarian (first-past-past-the-post). However, there are used differently and in different proportions in different countries.
Majoritysystem is supposed to give more chances to win for larger parties. That system usually distorts the public opinion, by providing larger share of seats than the share of votes gained.
Proportionalsystem – is just the opposite – allows small parties to compete with the larger ones. However, it favors coalition-government that are proved to be highly ineffective in the short and long runs – e.g. in Germany. It provides the same shares of seats as the share of votes received.
Usually, the debate over the electoral system attracts attention of parties, because it highly affects their victory potential. That leads to the conclusion that we cannot claim some system to be undemocratic – because they are both used in the developed countries – majority – in the UK, proportional – Austria, Bulgaria Croatia, Finland.
Voting behavior is a very special part of political science. It incorporates such spheres as psychological acting, political socialization, formal and informal attachments, individual analysis, etc. There are a few models of voting behavior.
First one is the party - identification model. It assumes that voting has very little with individual choice – most part of the life person is highly affected by the political socialization process he experienced in the first decades of life. Psychological attachment to the parties, formal membership and the sense of participation – all that factors form voting behavior of the individual. According to the model, people do not pay attention to differences in policies or action of the parties – there are attracted only by the persons, slogans, mottos and so on.
Sociological model. Proponents of that model think that voting behavior of the individual depends on the social position he holds. From that point of view, political socialization in family may have great impact, but not always decisive one – schools; universities other institutions may greatly affect the behavior pattern. In practice, different social groups or classes provide support for special political groups – people with higher incomes support conservatives, with the lower – favour liberals, with the lowest – far-right or far-left groups. Although the mentioned alignments are relevant for British reality, they may be proved false in the other countries.
Rational-choice model. That model is based on the assumption that person makes decision from the point of his/her real needs and objectives. Having weighted strengths and weaknesses of the possible outcome, the individual places the tick in the ballot.
Dominant-ideology model. That model or rather a group of models that can be labeled radical – has a lot of common with the previous ones. However, recognizing the importance of social position and mass-media activity, it claims that state institutions may also manipulate public opinion, exerting pressure on socialization processes, social integrity and so on. For example, it’s well known that mass-media may distort original public opinion and structure preferences and attitudes in the needed way. Thereby electoral process doesn’t merely reflect the public opinion but structures it as well.
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 85 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |