Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSG (10,000)
Final

All Lectures of 2nd Semester.doc


Department
Political Science
Course Code
POL203Y1
Professor
Ryan Hurl
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 77 pages of the document.
January 12 th
– Parties and Elections
1 st
Submission
The Supreme Courts job is to make sure that people know what the law is.
On of the largest differences in both models is what equates to the social safety net-
welfare state.
Peak level bargaining is characterized through the German model.
Training is a more dangerous decision in the US due to a high worker turnover ratio.
Market- Greater flexibility, easier to fire people.
Social- More training, better unions, harder to fire people.
Liberal market economies typically do better for job creation.
Easier to sustain growing inequality while it is dynamic and has low levels of
unemployment.
Growing inequality may not be salient during a time of economic growth.
It is a combination of the tax system, union decline, technology/skills and executive
compensation/finance that all contribute to growing inequality in the United States.
Cultural explanation- People working harder and wanting to emulate the success of Steve
Jobs can also lead to rising levels of inequality.
Increased returns for high IQ- entering into an information age, College education,
Transition of Cognitive ability to next generation, Assortative Mating= Smuggest Ruling
Class Ever (Meritocracy).
Declining marriage rate, Declining work force participation (gradual yet constant decline
that does not change with the state of the economy), Increasing crime (several
consequences), Decreasing religiousity (general correlation between wealth and religion)
= New Lower Class.
Political sources of inequlaity- neo-liberalism or inequality enhancing policies occurs in
both parties.
Policy changes in the 1970's created a new political trajectory that started the inequality.
Nixon was the last new-deal president. (All of the offices Nixon created were listed 30
seconds ago).
Attempts to expand healthcare, labour laws and so forth were voted out by congress as
deregulation occurred simultaneously.
Business Organizations acting on the basis of the economic interests.
Labour policies reflected through Federalism making it easier for businesses to relocate
when threatened with unionization.
Groups that represent business make up 50% of interest groups as a whole, 2/3rds of
those represent the interests of the wealthy.
Business presence does not always equate into power- you must break down the issues on
which they are most interested in: Particularistic (Issues of concern to a relatively narrow
range of firms- agriculture for trade protection); Conflictual (competing business
factions- trade with Canada in regard to lumber); Unifying (corporate taxation,
regulation).
Public opinion does not form over all issues. Larger issues must be paid greater attention
to whereas the smaller ones can be swept under the rug.
Public opinion shifts, occasionally with business interests other times against.
Tax reform act of 1986: Genuine example of bipartisanship- (pre-reform situation)
unified business opposition, indifferent public, bi-partisan consensus on the need for

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

reform > (strategy of reform) manipulative legislative procedures to limit "influence",
strategic side-payments > (reform unravels) return of support for targeted tax breas,
polarization of taxes.
2 nd
Submission
The rules of the Game: Selecting Presidential Candidates
Legislative Caucus (1600 – 1824): selection by national legislators
Convention System (1024- 1912?): Selection by party elites and party members
- Just because you win majority of primary doesn’t mean you will mean
nominations
- John F. Kennedy: convinced party elites to take chance on him because he won
primaries such as West Virginia. Demonstrated that there is a relatively openness
even under this old system.
Mixed System (1912? – 1968): Primaries combined with convention system for
Presidential selection
- More resistant to the ideas of elites similar to Canadian system. Someone entirely
elected by elites but not in primaries, e.g. Linden Johnson, democratic
conjunctions, massive ridings, massive violence.
- If we do not reform nominating system, the entire political system will fall apart.
They refer to the fact that anti-party politics will rise, the old system if not reform
will lead to violence. Based in the consumptions that this system was excluded
from the public. But e.g. William James was able to win nomination in 1964.
1968 was a bad year and the Republicans should have nominated someone else.
Reform System (1968 – now): Primaries are now only game in town
- Once you shift to the primaries system you have a more ideological politics.
The Consequences of Primaries
1. Unrepresentative Primary Voters: primary strategy conflicts with general election
strategy. The Problem: are primary voters really unrepresentative?
The problem of this claim is that primary voters are different from the general
spectrum, in studies, the public as a whole doesn’t vote, you compare people who
vote in the primary and people who in the election, and primary voters and voters
in the party. The problem is that party tried to act as the extremism, so they
decided to shift focus to more moderate voters in the part. This was proven
successful when Democratic Party elected President Clinton and Governor
Clinton.
They tend to favour outsiders and create problems with governing, while primary
voters listen to candidates that go against Washington.
2. The role of money in elections.
By introducing primary season, longer than one year, you are making raising
money for campaign more sensual for candidates, increase significance of money
in election.
Campaign Finance in America
- Federal Election Campaign Act 1971

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Partial funding of presidential campaigns
Reporting requirements
Strict donation requirements
- Judicial intervention/statutory change
The absent of cooperate finance law was crucial, by the 1970s things have changed, due
to the fact that television campaigning became more important, once you have advanced
technical campaigning, the needs to raise money can actually restore the electoral
process. The potential for corruptions and arrangements increase, so are the escalations of
battles for finance campaign for advertisements. Partial funding for presidential campaign
evening loans in parliament, differences in wealth should not lead to complete differences
in influences federal campaign laws 1972
Buckley v. Valleo, 1978
The basic fallout is that the law according the court is that when it tries to stop individual
to spend own money on federal election, you cannot use your own money. “We are trying
to prevent corruptions of individuals”
1979 party building
Allowing under the law, unregulated spending in campaign fundraising and party
activities. Allow party to raise money on things that are not necessary on specific
candidates
Col GOP Federal Campaign, 1972
Election hearing advertisement, party still cannot directly fund specific candidates, but as
long as they do not mention a specific candidate, they can fund for them. It’s about the
distinctions between directly engagements and ads that are simply trying to raise issues
which are on the table and public eyes, and they are obviously about a certain candidates.
- Key terms
Hard money
Specific findings on specific elections and finance for campaign
Soft money
Going to political parties to build parties on a whole, the law doesn’t limits soft money
spending but simply shifted it around.
Political Action Committees
- BCRA
Limits soft money (national parties, state parties)
Overall, the attempt to limit the influence of money fail, it just changes who receive it
and how they spend it. About 3 billion dollars is on electioneering spending, the money
figure has not been turned off.
Restrictions on “electioneering communication”
Case: According to the law, you cannot air a film where you cannot criticize Hilary
Clinton, in a free country even in time you find it inconvenience. Preventing bunch of
individuals criticising Clinton, cooperation as people and rights of individuals, there is a
black out period that you cannot run negative advertisements. Cooperation vs. People:
cooperation is not a person, but they are a group of people, they should be allowed to act
together to express opinions, but that seems to be an opponent to freedom of speech.
The Ultimate Impact of Campaign Finance
What exactly are the effects of campaign finance laws? Money is a weapon that
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version