Amy (2002) Real Choices, Real Voices

What is most useful?

What is it that the PR system brings to the table that alter political sophistication?


Chapter 1 Fair Representation For All
John Stuart Mill: “It is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented. No real democtacy, nothing but a false show of democracy, is possible without it.”
“The essential purpose of democratic elections is to allow as many people as possible to gain representation and to produce a legislature that faithfully reflects the various political views of the electorate” (25). SMDs fail to do so. A large number of Americans come away from elections without any representation, and thus go without any say in government. SMP elections represent only the majority or plurality of voters in a district. “Thus only the voters who are actually represented are those who vote for the winning candidate” (26). The rest “wasted” their vote.
Non-Rep contributes to:
-Voter apathy (low turnout, chapter 7).
-Legitimacy of our elections
Why does it continue?
-our reps claim to represent “all of us”
How does PR fix this?

Chapter 3 Improving Election Campaigns
State in the US: Mudslinging, slogan-ridden. 99% incumbency rate; SMPs encourage politicians to:
(1) neglect a serious discussion of issues and
(2) give candidates incentive to pursue negative campaigns (69).

(1) Neglecting the issues
“Ideally election campaigns should be opportunities for the voters to learn about the candidates’ policy positions and the social and economic theories that underlie them…But these are hardly the campaigns we get today, when issues and policies rarely play a central role in political campaigns” (70). All style, no content advertisements.
Benjamin Page:
“The most striking feature of candidates’ rhetoric about policy is its extreme vagueness. The typical campaign speech says virtually nothing specific about policy alternatives; discussions of the issues are hidden away in little-publicized statemesnts and position papers…In short, policy stands are infrequent, inconspicuous, and unspecific…Candidates are silled at appearing to say much while actually saying very little” (60, 1993).
*The usual suspects: the press, the public the politician.
**Why it’s the Voting system:
-Plurality makes issues risky because in order to capture a majority, candidates have to please as many of their constituents as possible; they cannot do this if they take strong positions that alienate a large proportion of the voters. “offend as few people as possible” (64, 1993). “Voter alienation multiples as the candidates broadcast more and more…eventually threatening their ability to put together a majority coalition” (65, 1993). “Instead of emphasizing issue stands—which is risky—it is much safer to campaign on character and personality” (65, 1993).
(2) Negative campaigns
designed to make it more difficult to capture majority..
Why PR is different:
-candidates are not obsessed with pleasing most of the people most of the time to get elected. Thus, they are more honest about their policy positions and can run issue-oriented campaigns.
-candidates run on a party label. Thus the character and personality of the candidates is not in the limelight, and even is inconsequential (68 1993).
-the character if multiple parties encourages a discussion of policy prefs. Candidates and parties have to distinguish themselves from opponents (1993, 70).

Chapter 4: Toward a Multi-Party System
Probs with a 2-party system:
-feelings of dissatisfaction
-the two parties are tweedle dee and tweedle dum (77, 1993).
HOW IS THIS CAUSED BY THE SMDs?
-Lowi: the “effect of a plurality system is that over time it contributes to the development not only of a two-party system, but on two moderate parties, that generally differ only slightly in their programs and policies” (80 1993). The candidates migrate to the middle.

Duverger’s Law: explains the supportive relationship between plurality rules and 2-party systems; voting rules work against multi-party governance in 2 ways: 1. The mechanical effect: the tendency of the plurality system to give the largest party more seats than it deserves and to give smaller parties fewer seats than they deserve (83). 2. The psychological effect: potential supporters will hesitate to vote for a minor-party candidate if they believe the candidate has little chance.

Chapter 7: Encouraging Voter Turnout
The poor abstain from voting because they see few politicians from either party as offering policies that would significantly address their problems (142, 1993). (attitudinal explanation); but mostly, institutional barriers such as voter registration guidelines (non-compulsory voting).



Amy (2002) recognizes eight problems with plurality elections: (1) Low voter turnout, (2) Tweedledum and Tweedledee candidates, (3) the two-party monopoly, (4) wasted votes, (5) issueless campaigns, (6) underrepresentation of women, (7) lack of minority representation, and (8) gerrymandering. These eight conditions work together to discourage motivation for being political knowledgeable.
Plurality rules encourage a two-party system. Duverger’s Law attributes the plurality systems as working against multi-party governance in two ways: (1) The mechanical effect which is the tendency of the plurality system to give the largest party more seats than it deserves and to give smaller parties fewer seats than they deserve And (2) the psychological effect which holds that potential supporters will hesitate to vote for a minor-party candidate if they believe the candidate has little chance. (Amy 1993, 83). Amy (2002) uses a grocery store shopping analogy to simplify the negative impact of the plurality system on our choices: when we go to the cereal isle at a grocery store we expect to be able to choose from more than just two kinds of cereal, yet we do not get to choose from more than two viable candidates, in our elections. Amy (2002) and numerous other scholars are fundamentally at odds with a system that encourages limited selection.
Further, candidates from the two major parties conglomerate around the middle. “The effect of a plurality system is that over time it contributes to the development not only of a two-party system, but on two moderate parties, that generally differ only slightly in their programs and policies” (Chase, Holt & Turner 1980, 115); in other words, the candidates migrate to the middle. When candidates migrate to the middle, citizens do not feel that there is a dimes-worth-of difference between the candidates, and they are less motivated to gather political information.
Another way in which plurality voting systems discourage the gathering of political information is by rejecting substantive, issue-oriented campaigns:
Ideally election campaigns should be opportunities for the voters to learn about the candidates’ policy positions and the social and economic theories that underlie them…But these are hardly the campaigns we get today, when issues and policies rarely play a central role in political campaigns (Amy 1993, 70).

Instead of campaigning on issues and substance, candidates invoke all style and no content advertisements. Benjamin Page (1978) describes the campaigning of modern candidates as “vague.” “The typical campaign speech says virtually nothing specific about policy alternatives; discussions of the issues are hidden away in little-publicized statements and position papers…In short, policy stands are infrequent, inconspicuous, and unspecific…Candidates are skilled at appearing to say much while actually saying very little” (153).
The vagueness described by Page is due to the risks that invoking “issue” speech conjures. Under plurality voting rules, initiating issue talk is potentially dangerous because in order to capture a majority, candidates have to please as many of their constituents as possible; they cannot do this if they take strong positions that alienate a large proportion of the voters (Amy 1993, 64). By focusing on his or her character and relying on his or her personality, candidates are able to avoid issue-talk.
The negative affects of candidates emphasizing their character and personality is that it makes issue-education almost unnecessary. If the candidates focus on their days as a football player, voters judge the candidates based on athleticism. In this way candidates “frame” the debate to highlight their personal appeal, at the expense of addressing the real issues. In contrast to the plurality system, a proportional representation system motivates individuals to be more political informed. The PR system elects multiple parties to government, enlists candidates with very different policy positions to run for office, and invokes issue-substantive campaigns, peaking citizen interest in a way that is unattainable in the U.S. (Amy 2002).
In a PR system, seats are awarded proportionally—in other words, the number of seats a party is issued corresponds with the percentage of the votes they received. If a party wins 40% of the vote in a district with 10 seats, that party is awarded 4 seats. In a plurality system, that same party would have been awarded zero seats if another party won more than 40% of the vote. By awarding seats in this matter, minority parties become more viable and increasingly likely to be represented in government. In such a situation, citizens become more engaged and excited.
In addition to awarding numerous parties seats in government, PR systems encourage descriptively different candidates to run for office. Amy (2002) notes: “Evidence clearly shows that countries with proportional representation consistently nominate and elect much higher numbers of women candidates.” The same is true for racial minorities. With higher numbers of women and racial minorities as candidates and representatives, previously marginalized groups now have a louder voice. What more, when citizens feel represented they are more inclined to be political informed.
Also, candidates running for office in a PR system do not have to shy away from the issues. Because they are less concerned with capturing a majority of the votes, candidates can take “principled stands,” enlivening the political debate, without fear of losing any chance of election. With an enlivened debate on the issues in the public discourse, citizens are motivated to gather information, engage in deliberation with friends, family and co-workers, and develop personal opinions and positions on specific issues. Characteristics such as these are largely unheard of in the U.S. The PR system can return such an electoral shift.
Heuristic and systematic processing models almost conclusively find that when given the option of processing a message heuristically or systematically, heuristic processing wins out (Torodov, Chaiken & Henderson 2002). This is due to the ease of processing messages heuristically. Yet I have shown that reliance on heuristics is problematic for two reasons: it encourages irrelevant evaluations and allows politicians to use “crafted talk.” Thus, in order to move away from heuristics an environment that encourages systematic processing needs to be cultivated. This analysis has shined light on the ways in which a proportional representation electoral system heightens individuals’ motivation to gather political information, and encourages scenarios and situations that invoke systematic processing of messages.