Welcome to Comparative Politics: Electoral and Party Systems!
In this chapter, we are going to look at how the UK and the USA choose their representatives and how their political parties operate. While both countries are famous democracies, they do things very differently! We will compare their electoral systems, why some parties win while others lose, and how campaign finance (money in politics) changes the game.
To help you master this, we will use three "lenses" called theoretical approaches:
1. Structural: Looking at the rules and institutions (like the Constitution).
2. Rational: Looking at how individuals (voters or politicians) act in their own best interest.
3. Cultural: Looking at the history, traditions, and values of the people.
1. Comparing Electoral Systems
Both the UK and the USA use a system called First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) for their main legislative elections (the House of Commons in the UK and the House of Representatives/Senate in the USA). However, the way they elect their executive (the PM vs. the President) is very different.
The US System: Complex and Long
The US process is much longer than the UK's. It involves:
- Primary Elections and Caucuses: These are used to nominate party candidates. This gives ordinary voters a huge say in who the candidate will be.
- The Electoral College: This is the unique way the US elects a President. Instead of a direct national vote, each state has a certain number of "points" (electors). This can mean a candidate wins the "popular vote" but loses the election (as seen in 2016).
The UK System: Shorter and Changing
- General Elections: Usually last only 5-6 weeks. Voters choose an MP, and the leader of the party with the most MPs usually becomes Prime Minister.
- Devolved Elections: Unlike the USA, the UK uses proportional systems for elections in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This makes the UK more of a "multi-system" country compared to the US, which sticks mostly to FPTP.
Quick Review: The US system is focused on candidate-centered campaigning (due to primaries), while the UK is more party-centered.
2. The Party Systems: Two-Party vs. Multi-Party
One of the biggest debates in this course is why the USA stays a two-party system (Democrats and Republicans) while the UK is moving towards a multi-party system.
Why does the USA stay a Two-Party System?
- Structural Factors: The "Winner-Take-All" nature of the Electoral College makes it almost impossible for third parties to win states. Also, the two main parties often "co-opt" (steal) the best ideas from third parties.
- Cultural Factors: Americans have a long history of "Big Tent" parties that try to fit many different views under one roof.
- Rational Factors: Voters often feel that voting for a third party is a "wasted vote," so they rationally choose the "lesser of two evils" between the big two.
Why is the UK moving towards a Multi-Party System?
- Devolution: The creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly has allowed parties like the SNP to become dominant in certain regions.
- Partisan Dealignment: This is a key term! It means voters are no longer "married" to one party for life. They are more likely to switch votes or support minor parties like the Liberal Democrats or Reform UK.
- Third-Party Impact: Even if they don't win many seats in Westminster, minor parties in the UK often influence the national agenda (e.g., UKIP’s influence on the Brexit referendum).
3. Campaign and Party Finance
Money is a huge point of comparison. Don't worry if the US terms seem confusing; just think of them as "buckets of money."
The USA: High Spending and "Super PACs"
- Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs: These organizations raise massive amounts of money to support candidates. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money, provided they don't "coordinate" directly with the candidate.
- Incumbency Advantage: In the US, the person already in office (the incumbent) usually finds it much easier to raise money than a newcomer.
The UK: Strict Regulation
- Spending Limits: The UK has very strict rules on how much a party can spend during an election campaign.
- Party Funding: Most UK funding comes from membership fees, trade unions (for Labour), or wealthy individual donors (for Conservatives). Unlike the US, there is no "TV advertising" bought by parties; instead, they get free Party Political Broadcasts.
Key Takeaway: US elections are significantly more expensive and rely more on "outside" money from pressure groups than UK elections.
4. Internal Party Unity and Policies
Are parties "united teams" or "messy families"?
UK Parties: Tightly Disciplined
In the UK, parties are generally very united in Parliament. This is because of the Whip system. If an MP votes against their party, they can be punished or even kicked out. UK parties also have clear manifestos (lists of promises) that all candidates are expected to support.
US Parties: "Big Tents" and Factions
US parties are much more polarized (meaning the gap between Democrats and Republicans is growing), but within each party, there is often less discipline than in the UK.
- A Democrat from a conservative state like West Virginia might vote very differently from a Democrat from California.
- Because the President doesn't "control" Congress the way a PM controls Parliament, individual members of Congress have more freedom to vote their own way.
5. Using the Three Theoretical Approaches
To get those top marks in a 25-mark essay, you must apply these theories. Here is a simple guide on how to do it for this chapter:
1. Structural Approach (The Rules):
Argument: The reason the US has a two-party system is the Constitution and the Electoral College. The "winner-take-all" rules create a structural barrier that keeps third parties out. In the UK, devolution is a structural change that helped create a multi-party system.
2. Cultural Approach (The History/Values):
Argument: The US has a culture of "rugged individualism," which leads to candidate-centered campaigns. In the UK, there is a stronger cultural tradition of class-based voting (though this is declining due to partisan dealignment), which makes the party more important than the individual candidate.
3. Rational Approach (The Self-Interest):
Argument: Candidates in the US join one of the two main parties because it is the only rational way to get funding and media attention. Voters in the UK might rationally choose a third party in a local or devolved election because they know the proportional system means their vote will actually count toward a seat.
Summary Checklist: Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Don't say the UK has a two-party system. Use the term multi-party system or explain that it is "moving towards" one.
- Don't confuse PACs with the candidates themselves. PACs are independent groups.
- Remember: The US has primaries to choose candidates; the UK generally has local party branches choose candidates. This is a vital difference in who holds the power in the party!
Quick Review Tip: Think of US parties as "loose coalitions" of individuals and UK parties as "disciplined armies" of voters!